Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Instructions/Archive 1

I've removed a phrase
I've removed a phrase about the template automatically converting subtopics to topics because such was not the case. (Indeed, we were getting lots of articles that needed "categorization" on the backlog listing. Overall I've changed the instructions to say "add topic=" for the parameters. Also, I've been revising the instructions to say "topic" rather than "category" because of the mixup between the parameter instructions ("topic") vs. WP Categorization.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic
The instruction say if subtopic is left blank, it will be sorted miscellanous. I tried that on St. Martin, Idstein but get the request to enter topic. I am not sure. It's not about architecture alone, also history and mostly music, - help? - I nominated the other church in town under Architecture years ago, - failed because of too little architecture. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, consider reviewing two (2) nominations, for each one that you nominate.
Added to page, the following text:


 * 1) Please, consider reviewing two (2) nominations, for each one that you nominate.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please excuse me for reverting that until it is properly re-discussed and decided by the community. There have been discussions that decided against any kind of quid pro quo for GA. Prhartcom (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am NOT talking about quid-pro-quo. I am saying this is a simple fact of math: many people nominate and never review. This contributes significantly to the backlog. What I wrote does NOT imply quid-pro-quo. I will add it back, thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Added note to make it more clear DIFF. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's not appropriate to have this quid pro quo text added to two consecutive sections. (I'm not sure about it even appearing once, but twice is clearly excessive.) Please choose one or the other. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I removed it from the "Waiting" section; the important thing is to tell them what to expect right off, not talk about something else entirely. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I added a note explaining that it is NOT quid-pro-quo. Thank you for understanding that, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt, when we say Quid pro quo, we do not mean review a specfic person's work, then that same person review your work. When we say Quid pro quo, we mean review someone else's work before asking anyone to review yours, similar to the rules of WP:DYK. It has been decided against making rules like that for GA. (One reason for the GA Cup is to help clear the GA backlog without imposing QPQ.) Therefore, we need to remove your good faith addition to the instructions until the community decides otherwise, probably by a formal process. From Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ: "Can't we force nominators to review articles? Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) is regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to far lower quality of reviews and to discouraging nominations from some excellent content creators who do not wish to review other people's work." Prhartcom (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need to remove anything because I added a note that this is NOT "quid pro quo". &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I truly do not want to go head-to-head with you. Please forgive me for saying: You seem to be operating under a misunderstanding of what the term means here at Wikipedia. Here, it means exactly what you are trying to impose. That is why I painstakingly explained what the term means, above. Please take a step back, read what I typed above, read the FAQ, and consider what I am trying to communicate before replying. BlueMoonset, please help with your thoughts, please? Prhartcom (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in my addition does it say anything about "forcing" anyone to do anything. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, I think the best thing would be to bring this proposal to WT:GAN to see whether the community feels this is an appropriate addition to the GAN instructions, and if so, just what the wording should be and where it should be placed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We're already discussing it here, let's not have the same discussion splinter into multiple places. I added Suggestion and Optional to the wording. Hopefully that is an acceptable compromise to that no one is being "forced" to do anything. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we agree that the wording as given now with the wording Suggestion and Optional and consider &mdash; does not "force" anyone into doing anything? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can agree. I'm in favor of whatever positive step should be taken to both: 1) alleviate the backlog and 2) maintain no roadblocks in an editor's path to a new GA article. I agree to leave it in for now as you have made it clear that it is optional. Others who are reading this later: please take a look and make your decision. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much,, I'm so glad we were able to come to an acceptable compromise! Much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel a bit bad about the ballyhoo this seems to have caused. I was the one who suggested to that he make the suggestion here. My thought was not quid pro quo, but rather along the lines of pay it forward. I agree that we don't want to impede folks from going for a GA, but the backlog itself is an impediment, with long waiting times for reviews. I think the current version makes it very clear that this is optional. Perhaps wording to the effect of pay it forward might be added as a way of further emphasizing the volunteerism aspect of it.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for agreeing that the current language makes it clear this is an optional suggestion to consider. Your recommendation is also an excellent one; I've added pay it forward to the wording. Thank you very much, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggest oldest candidates get reviewed first
Please give this some thought. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Some GA candidates have been waiting for a reviewer for over six (6) months.
 * 2) Yet other GA candidates lower down in the queue for the same topic get a reviewer within a day or two.
 * 3) This seems unfair to the GA nominator twenty-or-so candidates up on a list.
 * 4) I propose we make an addition to the GA Reviewing instructions &mdash; to kindly suggest that reviews come in on a First-come, first-served basis. Oldest candidates within each queued subtopic should ideally be selected first to review.


 * The wordings is a bit too strong. Forcing reviewers to review the earliest nomination first does not seem practical to me (reviewers may review articles that they find interesting, this may drive away some reviewers). I support the idea of encouraging reviewers to review earliest nominations though. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I changed "require" to "kindly suggest", above. How does that look to you as a suggested change, now? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. You should also change "must be selected" to "should be selected" though. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "should ideally be selected", look better? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks much better. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And thank you for your recommendations, I agree a suggestion is better here. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , please see DIFF. How do these modifications look to you? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

- I don't have an issue with the current wording. I would have had an issue if it was a requirement. I haven't reviewed many, but the ones I have reviewed were because it interested me. I'm sorry that some folks have been waiting a long time, but that's simply a fact of life. I think that requiring the last be reviewed first would create a larger backlog. When reviewers are allowed to choose something that interests them, the backlog will be managed better. If this wasn't voluntary I would agree wholeheartedly to a requirement, but we are volunteers. This process I fear tends to lend itself to having newer topics reviewed first, but again, something we have to live with. However, making the strong suggestion, as Cirt has, I think is a good idea.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Cirt, first of all, I understand about the wait times as I experience them myself. Second of all, I notice now that you have aggressively "won" one round, you are trying to aggressively "win" another round [achieved what you wanted in one area of the instructions, you would like to achieve what you want in a completely different area of the instructions] and solve all the problems you see with the GA process. Please calm yourself. Yes, there is a backlog. But we do not wish to impose more and more rules, or even more and more suggestions, to the GA process. You got your way above. Let's please wait for six to twelve months and see how the backlog looks after that time. During that time, reviewers, who are in short supply obviously, are already told on the Instructions page which articles on the list are newer than others, and will make their own mind up which articles they wish to review without us imposing yet another passive-aggressive rule designed to modify their behavior. Please consider my suggestion to not meddle further with the Instructions page. I'm sure you plan to respond below; hopefully other editors will also provide their comments. Prhartcom (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the added text is necessary: we want the instructions to be as simple and direct as possible. It already says but the older nominations towards the top of the lists have been waiting longer and should be given higher priority. This is sufficient without the proposed addition. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I respectfully agree with and I disagree with, who unfortunately is assuming bad faith and using poor language to have a most negative and rude tone about my actions. I have politely discussed, back-and-forth, with , above. I took onboard helpful suggestions and feedback from . The wording is suggested. I see no problem with adding kindly suggest to the wording. I take issue with  defining the word "suggest" as "aggressive". That is inappropriate. I request  please to refactor their inappropriate characterizations about me, which are wrong. I am indeed trying to take on helpful feedback from others, as per back-and-forth with , above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for stepping over the line; I did not intend to assume bad faith; I have struck the word that I should not have used, above. I, too, agree with Onel5969 who states that the reviewer will review what they wish to review. We clearly suggest to the reviewer which articles they should consider reviewing as those have been waiting longer and thus deserve priority. Like BlueMoonset says, that is enough. We know that the reviewer will volunteer to review whatever article they want to review. Instructions should not have a "personality" and should not be "kind"; instructions should be simple and direct, informative and to the point. Prhartcom (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you,, for your apology, I accept it. I'm indeed trying to take on helpful feedback while also modifying the process a bit to improve upon it. I would like to add this wording: "Some GA candidates have been waiting for a reviewer for over six (6) months. Yet other GA candidates lower down in the queue for the same topic sometimes get a reviewer within a day or two. This seems unfair to the GA nominator higher up on a particular topic list. It is therefore suggested that reviews come in on a first-come, first-served basis. Oldest candidates within each queued subtopic should ideally be selected first to review." I don't see anything wrong with adding this additional wording to the page. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is these instructions are starting to sound like a real person with a personality, like an editor on a discussion page. These are instructions. Remember: Simple, direct, informative, to the point. Prhartcom (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you,, very good points. I've tweaked it a bit: "Some GA candidates have been waiting for a reviewer for over six (6) months. Yet other GA candidates lower down in the queue for the same topic sometimes get a reviewer within a day or two. It is suggested that reviews come in on a first-come, first-served basis. Oldest candidates within each queued subtopic should ideally be selected first to review." Better? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. It is redundant to say the same thing twice in the instructions. Here is what the instructions currently say:

"Choose an article from nominations page that you would like to review. You may review any unreviewed article, but the older nominations towards the top of the lists have been waiting longer and should be given higher priority."
 * Maybe we could instead say:

"Choose an article from nominations page that you would like to review. You may review any unreviewed article, but the older nominations towards the top of the lists have been waiting for as long as six (6) months and should be given priority over nominations towards the bottom of the lists."
 * Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

How about this version, sort of a combination of both suggestions: "Choose an article from nominations page that you would like to review. You may review any unreviewed article, but the older nominations towards the top of the lists have been waiting for as long as six (6) months and should be given priority over nominations towards the bottom of the lists. It is suggested that reviews come in on a first-come, first-served basis. Oldest candidates within each queued subtopic should ideally be selected first to review." What do you think? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you want redundancy? Prhartcom (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I want clarity. The current version doesn't say first-come, first-served, which I think is quite reasonable for most GA nominators to assume would be the process, based on the queue structure. Otherwise, they'd all be undated in one big pool. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed revision is too long and redundant. The more that gets added to the basic instructions, the more likely people are to start skimming and miss important details. The current phrase "should be given higher priority" strongly implies oldest first is desirable with an economy of words. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, BlueMoonset. Let's keep it simple. Plus, we want them to focus on the articles at the top of the list, so let's not mention the others:

"Choose an article from nominations page that you would like to review. You may review any unreviewed article, but the older nominations towards the top of the lists have been waiting for as long as six (6) months and should be given higher priority."
 * Prhartcom (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, good points, all. Here's a slight tweak: "Choose an article from nominations page that you would like to review. You may review any unreviewed article, but the older nominations towards the top of the lists have been waiting for as long as six (6) months and should be given higher priority, on a first-come, first-served basis." How about this? Good compromise? Please? Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really curious why you have to "win" the compromise above wasn't sufficient for you. What are you doing? Prhartcom (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please,, I beg of you NOT to frame this as "winning" or "losing". It appears you are using psychological projection from your own wishes. I want to compromise. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. How about the compromise above? It has everything you want except for the odd FCFS phrase. Prhartcom (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you for the 2nd apology,, and thank you for refactoring. I've added in the wording, as suggested by , above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've added italics, DIFF, hope that's an acceptable compromise here. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Suggested compromise: Perhaps we can find a way to even slightly emphasize this wording in the page, so that potential reviewers will actually read it and not gloss over it as TL;DR. If we can do that, then I think we'll have found an effective suggested compromise solution to this problem. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit by is a most agreeable compromise for me, at DIFF. Thank you,, most appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency in nominator expectations
The instructions for nominating state, "...the review will require your involvement as nominator", but at WP:RGA it states, "...the nominator has no duty to participate in the review". Though participation is encouraged, WP:RGA goes further by saying, "no one is required to participate in the review or interact with the reviewer". Obviously, a productive review greatly benefits from the participation of the nominator or other editors that have significantly contributed to the article in question, but if ultimately it's not required as WP:RGA states, then the language here on the instructions page should reflect that (or vice versa if WP:RGA needs to be changed). Currently, it does not. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60, thank-you for pointing this out. You are right; the language is inconsistent and one of the two needs to be improved. I see that the language at WP:RGA was added four years ago, before the newer language was added to WP:GAN/I. In my opinion after nominating and reviewing and working at the GA Help Desk, it is the older WP:RGA that is outdated. It is my strong opinion that, while of course Wikipedia is a volunteer project and we do not want to set up any roadblocks to nominating, that does not mean that a nominator can get away with having no responsibility of involvement in the process. At the help desk, I have never seen anyone complain that a nominator believes they need not be involved, so I do not believe that any nominators take advantage of the attitude expressed by the WP:RGA language. I will be making an improvement to the WP:RGA language if you agree, and perhaps others will comment below also. Prhartcom (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into it. Since I had no part in forming the consensus behind its wording, I can't really comment on whether or not modifying WP:RGA is the best approach. I know I had read similar statements elsewhere, so I searched and found a few more locations (WP:GA, WP:GNGA, and WP:Good article frequently asked questions). They also support the notion that the nominator's participation is optional (though encouraged). It is implicitly stated at WP:GA and explicitly stated at WP:GNGA and at the FAQ. So there are at least four locations now that contradict with the instructions, possibly more. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * After giving this more thought, I came to the realization that WP:RGA is a guideline that easily predates these instructions and has a lot more edits. These instructions are at best the equivalent of an essay with far fewer edits, and as a result, should be modified to coincide with the guideline. If there is any desire to reinstate the stricter language, then it should be taken up at the guideline first to gain consensus. For everyone's reference, I made the following changes: diff --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I like some of these improvements. I want you to know that I agree that there should be no roadblocks to nominating and certainly not to reviewing. However, have you worked at the GA Help Desk? Have you ever personally seen what I call a "drive-by nomination", in which a nominator who has only superficially contributed to the article wants to hat collect a GA icon for themselves by benefiting from the efforts of others? I'm just being realistic here and speaking from experience of seeing editors action these guidelines. The key to avoiding an unfortunate but possible situation is to communicate that being a nominator requires some effort and responsibility. Just as improving an article obviously requires some effort and responsibility. I'm sure you likely agree and won't mind if I clarify both guideline pages a bit. Requesting 's thoughts as well. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted the change to WP:GANI; so far as I am concerned these are the latest and preferred version of what should be done, and if WP:RGA does not agree, it is the one that should be updated to reflect current reality. The WT:GAN talk page should probably be pinged to get more opinions here, since most of the discussions that have resulted in changed to WP:GANI have started there. At a time when we have a horrendous GAN backlog, I believe it is a bad idea to encourage drive-by nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, the changes I implemented were done in good faith, with the intention of improving the instructions page. Many of the changes that were just reverted consisted of grammar improvements and corrections, which I seriously doubt warranted a wholesale revert. Many are still necessary regardless of the outcome of this discussion. As for the conflicting practices described above that I attempted to change, we can certainly discuss those in more detail, but please realize that my position at the moment has nothing to do with whether or not I believe one to be more correct than the other. Instead, my approach focuses on the policy outlined at WP:PG, which clarifies the relationship between policies, guidelines, essays, and other types of pages in the Wikipedia namespace. While the instructions at this page have the broad support of WP:WGA, the information at WP:RGA is a guideline that has much broader support from the Wikipedia community, as its implementation required approval through the use of.
 * That being said, I checked the version of WP:RGA at the time it was promoted to guideline status. It contained no such language about the nominator's role in the review process. Digging further, it appears this edit by WhatamIdoing added the information that's being contested here. I then searched extensively through the talk archives at WP:RGA and wasn't able to locate a relevant discussion that supported these changes. Hopefully WhatamIdoing can shed more light on the history surrounding this change, and of course, provide another opinion on the current situation. Drum roll please... --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had already done this research and already found who added the changes four years ago. It doesn't matter who added it. It was added, just as yours were added, in good faith yes, but also from a theoretical standpoint. Bluemoonset and I know the reality: We work the issues that come up at the GA Help Desk, we have seen the drive-by nominations, we understand the backlog, and we have lately succeeded at holding off further issues via the newer language that I also will add soon to WP:RGA. I ask again: Do you understand these real issues that we are dealing with? Please respect our volunteer efforts and the people we are trying to help. Feel free to edit the instructions again to return your grammar corrections, but please do not take us back to 2011. Prhartcom (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries Prhartcom. I realize you two are the subject matter experts here, and your volunteer efforts are greatly appreciated. In fact, what lead me to this discussion was the consideration of contributing to the cause as soon as time permits. It is certainly not my intention to make things more difficult. As I noted in the opening of this discussion, I realize the participation of the nominator greatly benefits the review process. I'm sure this is just a minor inconsistency that can be dealt with accordingly without harming the cause. But to answer your question that I forgot to address last time around, no, I haven't worked on the GA help desk or personally witnessed a "drive by nomination". Please don't interpret my efforts here as a lack of respect for what this project entails. It is very much the opposite. In light of the revelations above, it's clear that we have an unintended conflict between two different consensus. I'm sure it won't take much to resolve this issue in a manner that respects both the WikiProject and WP:PG. Common sense should prevail at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My POV on this issue certainly isn't theoretical: The first review I did had zero involvement from the nom, and it created no problems at all.  The article was already in excellent shape, and no input from the nom was needed.  In other cases, the article doesn't meet the criteria, and then the reviewer just fails the article.  There is no requirement that the reviewer and the nom spend days or weeks negotiating back and forth about various details, and indeed, every single speedy fail is a review that happens without the participation of the nom.
 * Here's the problem with "requiring" noms to participate: We say that anyone can nominate an article.  This means that even drive-by editors can (and occasionally do) nominate an article.  So can people who edit occasionally and aren't around when the article is reviewed (which happens more often).  So either you have to acknowledge that the participation of the nom is optional (although encouraged and normal), or you have to stop saying that anyone can nom articles, and instead say that only people who can guarantee that they will be available during the review can nom articles.  You can't have it both ways.  Also, if noms are "required" to participate, then you must stop both speedy fails and speedy promotions, because letting the reviewer make the right decision without waiting for the nom to post on the review page means that you are simultaneously requiring and disallowing the nom's participation.
 * (As a side note, "hat collecting" is an irrelevant consideration. The nominator is the least important person in the process.  If you nom an article that you didn't write, then you really deserve zero credit for the article.  The editor(s) who get the credit are the ones that wrote it, not the one who said "Hey, maybe this one meets this set of criteria".  If you're having a problem with hat collecting, then stop giving awards to noms, and start giving them to the editors who did the most work on the article.  Or stop giving awards altogether.  Or even stop caring who takes credit.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, someone asked for the history: If memory serves, it was triggered by a complaint from a reviewer that a nominator was not engaging in the review as much as the reviewer wanted.  There's never been a requirement that noms participate, but their participation is so common that some reviewers thought it was absolutely necessary.  It's the sort of mental error that happens all the time:  "There's a dead link checker in the box, so I'm not allowed to pass an article with a dead link, right?"  (Sure, that'll be true just as soon as you can get "Violates WP:DEADREF by removing all dead links" added to the actual criteria.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One more thing: If the community decides to require noms' participation, then you have to change WP:GACR itself.  It says "For most reviews, the nominator is given a chance to address any issues", which is not compatible with a requirement that the nom participate in the review.  "Given a chance to" means "may freely decide not to".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed the inconsistencies. Thank-you again for raising this topic. Note that the problem was because the Reviewing guideline had strayed off-topic. My edit is here; I hope this is satisfactory. GoneIn60, it's great to hear you would consider helping at the GA Help Desk. Go ahead and dive in and answer any editor's question at any of the GA discussions if you'd like. Feel free to come to me if questions or for assistance anytime. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone should be nominating
I'd like the aggregate to consider revising the concept that anyone can nominate a good article. This, in practice, is not true. Our more experienced editors have recently been refusing and rolling back nominations from new editors with no question about it. I propose we update our de jure instructions to reflect de facto norms. Specifically, I want to excise the phrasing about anyone and insert language to the effect of articles may be nominated by registered editors with a substantial number of constructive edits to either the article itself or other related articles. These changes need to be made both in these instructions and at WP:RGA.

For explanation, it appears this idea that anyone can nominate a GA comes from 's initial version of RGA in March of 2007 and these instructions in April of 2013. I don't know there was ever a consensus for this stance and from previous discussions it appears there is in fact a consensus against.

I've kept my proposed wording deliberately vague so as to disallow n00b editors while not impeding the good work being done by our regular WP:GA participants. I think making this change makes more sense than trying to dissuade new users with language about nominator responsibilities. I'd appreciate general input rather than create a formal RfC so as to determine the feasibility of my proposal. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would oppose restricting the nominations based on registration of an account, and would instead prefer some language which indicated that nominations which are blatantly poorly considered (i.e. which it would be obvious aren't even close) can be reverted per WP:SNOW. We should focus on content, not contributors, and we have many long-term editors who know what they are doing and don't have accounts.  If it's an obvious waste of someone's time to formally review a nomination that obviously not even close, WP:SNOW removal of such a nomination, along with a polite explanation of the problems, is more appropriate than some arbitrary requirement to restrict who can nominate an article.  -- Jayron 32 16:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , as it it says at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ, this idea of yours is regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators. Don't worry. I have been watching this page and the nominations page for a long time and this issue of "drive-by nominators", while it does come up occasionally, is fairly rare. There actually haven't even been very many recent failed nominations; most nominations succeed. In short, the issue is quite manageable. The main reason we don't want to do this is it would put a roadblock in the path to excellent articles, and we want to keep that path as clear as possible. I know what you mean with this issue, believe me; as it once happened to me, and I have had to help other people when it occurs. I have thought about asking to implement this idea also. But what I did instead was ensure that language in the good article instructions qualifies what it means to be a nominator. It has been clear on the instructions page for a while now that a nominator should know he or she has a responsibility to improve the article, or at least work with others to improve it. It is also already clear on the good article criteria page for a while now that a poor nomination may be quickly failed, as says. Believe it or not, I have even had similar discussions with other editors besides yourself who actually wanted to loosen the current guidelines and actually stress the fact that anyone can nominate. I was able to persude them that the current situation is the most workable. I think what we have truly causes the fewest problems and is the best for the community. I hope I can persuade you to agree as well. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Made changes to formula template for GAC
When I used the formula previously provided on the GA instruction page to nominate an article for GA, it did not work, so I tried a few things at the article until it worked. Now, I have corrected the formula on the GA instruction page, with a better method that will work. If you see anything to improve it, then please make any needed changes--just make sure your improved method works. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * One little thing: we could find a way to take the = sign off, after the example of "four tildes" parameter. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request for significant contributions
To review an article you must: I have realised that my interpretation of significant contributions differs quite a bit from that of at least one other editor. Naturally I think my interpretation is more realistic, but I am left wondering what the consensus opinion actually is, and if it has been recorded anywhere. After all, I may be wrong and don't want to give bad advice. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not be the nominator nor have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review
 * I propose adding a footnote explaining the range of significant contribution that would disqualify a potential reviewer.
 * Significant contributions generally include addition of content, deletion of established content (excluding reversion of vandalism and unsupported content), major restructuring of layout, and edit warring. Copyediting, format, grammar and spelling corrections, improvement of references, categories, images, navboxes and links, tagging of problems, and civil participation in talk page discussions generally do not count. If in doubt, ask the nominator. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As no-one has indicated otherwise, I have added the footnote. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen this post, and I don't agree with your quantification here. Some copyedits are significant, a complete reformat could be. I don't think we should come up with a formal definition, so I've reverted your addition. I would suggest that a discussion at WT:GAN will probably attract more eyeballs, and more thoughts on whether "significant" needs further expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Have I made significant contributions?
I'd like to review Civil War II, but first I'd like a second opinion on if my edits there are significant to exclude me. I've made 27 edits total, but I'm the 4th most frequent editor. Only 5 of those 27 were larger than 100 bytes, and 3 of those were to remove plot bloat. TriiipleThreat is the primary author with 269 edits. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * After a cursory read-through of your diffs, I would say be bold and do it if your honest opinion is that you are neutral. If it goes well it is likely that it will be accepted without comment. If anyone has objections, well this is Wikipedia, stuff happens and we deal with it. You have done due diligence by asking. The buck probably passes to me. So it goes. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What is required of a nominator
Currently, the instructions begin:


 * "Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly and are familiar with the subject,"

This does not mention a critical requirement, namely that the nominator is prepared to wait until a reviewer takes up the GAN (and then to spend the time and effort to answer the reviewer's comments; and to apply the required amount of skill and knowledge of the article's subject, but I probably digress too far). Without such preparedness, the review will almost always fail.

I suggest therefore we briefly mention the requirement, modifying the opening statement as follows:


 * "Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is essential they are prepared to wait until a reviewer responds, and highly preferable that they have contributed significantly and are familiar with the subject,"  Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above from November 2015. Participation isn't absolutely required, since anyone can nominate an article (though most agree that it's "highly preferable"). Therefore, I would avoid terms like "essential". A better grammatical form might be:
 * ""Articles can be nominated by anyone, although it is highly preferable that the nominator is available when the review begins, has contributed significantly to the article in question, and is familiar with its subject,"
 * It's possible as well that we can eliminate "is familiar with its subject", since significant contribution usually entails the latter. The less instruction creep the better. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What if someone is indeed "familiar with" the article subject but has not actually "contributed significantly" to the article in question? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it wouldn't be a preferred scenario, and preferred is what this statement is all about. There may certainly be situations where it's acceptable, but that would be more of an exception rather than the rule. We would want nominators that know the article's content well, and an editor who has significantly contributed would better fit the bill. Besides, if the article is at least semi-active or in good enough shape for a GA nomination, chances are there is a significant contributor actively editing/protecting the article who deserves the credit for the nomination. Pristine articles rarely go weeks or months without an invested editor keeping it in good form. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I uninvolved enough to possibly give an article a GA Review...
I am #22 on the list of contributors with 52 edits (but the top 5 editors have more than 5700 edits to the article between them). There is some talk on the article's talkpage of putting the article up for a GA and I haven't edited the article in about a year. Would welcome thoughts on if I am uninvolved enough to review the article. I'm experienced and know I will be impartial (I did win the latest GA Cup) but I don't want to put a lot of work into a GA Review (the article is fairly massive - it has 83kb of readable prose and more than 2000b of references) and then have to abandon it because maybe I've run afoul of The Rules. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I had a similar question a couple sections up, but I was #4 and had edited much more recently than a year ago. User:Pbsouthwood thought I'd be ok, and I never got any negative feedback. I think you're fine. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say it depends more on what your edits were than how many you made. If you made 52 minor and uncontroversial edits edits there should be no problem. If it was a 52 edit war and you got a topic ban then not so good. 52 edits which provided half the content would suggest serious involvement, 52 reversions of vandalism - not so much involvement. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Shearonink, I'd want to take a look at the article in question and its editing history directly before giving you an answer; one factor would be how much of your work remains in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Quick fail" criteria
I have raised some concerns about the "quick fail" criteria here. Comments welcome there- it's best if this can be kept in one place! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Paired reviewer?
I'm interested in giving GA a go but would love to know there's someone who might review my work, following my initial review of the article, to make sure I'm conducting such reviews correctly. Is there someone who might be willing to work with me that way? Barkeep49 (talk)
 * I'd be happy to do so. Just ping me when you're done, or leave a message on my talk page if you'd like to discuss procedures beforehand. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Religion as possible new subtopic
“Religion” does not appear in the inventory of subtopics, although it should, given its importance, especially historically before secularism began replacing it in the Western countries. Religion of course fits in the “Culture &c” subtopic; yet culture’s broad, including languange, literature, technology, toilet habits and, potentially, almost anything else on the subtopics list. Wikepedia devotes a large number of articles to religion, with series on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and others. I propose such a subtoptic be added, although because unsure how this is done, will leave it to a more senior editor. Jessegalebaker (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It fits under Good articles/Philosophy and religion... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Drive by nomination
Hi all,

I've reviewed a few GAs before, but I've recently started a review of Kenny Omega, but didn't really check who the nominator was before I started the review. It looks like the nominator has only 12 edits to the page, with around a 1% authorship of the page. Is this an issue? Should this have been discussed on the talk page prior to the nomination?

Am I OK to continue the review, or should I wait/cancel? Thank you for your time.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Articles may be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with the subject." So long as the article's GA quality, anyone can nominate it. It might be a good idea to start the review and see if the nominator (or another editor) responds to your initial suggestions before diving too deep into it. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I did the review, but it was quite obvious early on it wasn't good enough regardless. Thanks for your time.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Second reviewer
I'm not sure this is the correct place for this, but my reviewer for Talk:WrestleMania IV has been attempting to pass on the review to someone else for a while. Could someone else take a look at the review for me? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Archiving nom discussions by default
I propose editing WP:Good article nominations/Instructions page to add a step for reviewers (under both passing and failing) to archive every nomination discussion page once the nomination has been passed for failed. The instruction would be to place Archive top and Archive bottom around the entire nom page except for the top header.

I also propose adding to step 1 under both passing and failing an instruction for reviewers to remove the transcluded nomination discussion template, since this is already a common practice and because the discussion does not need to be on the talk page, since it will be linked by the talk page template already.  Ergo Sum  22:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ergo Sum, may I suggest you put this on the WT:GAN page to get more eyes on it? I'm of two minds: sometimes, when a pass or fail is hasty, it's useful to have the pages still open so a comment may be made to suggest that the review be reopened so that issues may be addressed (in the case of a pass) or that the nominator be given a chance to address the issues or a fuller review be done (in the case of an inappropriate quick fail). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea; I've left a comment there.  Ergo Sum  21:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Topics
Hi I recently made a GAN and got a bit confused at the step to add topics. I wasn't able to add three topics, as it seems to be suggested is possible ("If it fits under more than one category, choose any one of those") so i would propose adding an extra sentence under "Instructions / Step 2: Nominating the article / 2" to make it clear how to do that. Further, the list of topics at "Instructions/Step 2: Nominating the article" isn't the same as the list at "Nominations / List of good articles nominations, arranged by topic" which I am presuming is a more up to date list since it's wikilinked up. This is also a bit confusing for people reading the instructions page. Mujinga (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * When it says "choose any one of those", it means to choose only one of the possible categories. If one article were listed under two categories, it would appear on the nominations list twice and make tracking the backlog more complex than it needs to be. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, thanks. Then i would propose changing the sentence to "If it fits under more than one category, choose the most applicable one" or "If it fits under more than one category, still choose only one." On my further point, on reflection it would seem best to delete the list of topics from Instructions and simply link to the list at Nominations.Mujinga (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bot edit?
Hi... I noticed in the instructions for when an article passes GA, it says that a bot will edit the article page to add the top icon, and not to do this manually. I nominated trifluoroperacetic acid for GA and it was passed at 14:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC). I'm wondering when the bot will add the icon etc., or if it was missed somehow? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Rookie advice
I am not that skilled at reviewing articles but might it be common that the bot is taking its time to send the review message to the nominator or did I forget something?Tintor2 (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, Legotbot has just provided the news to the nominator. Guess it takes some time.Tintor2 (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wolsey Angelbabybella (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. What about it? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we consolidate GA-related talk pages?
Hi all, please share your thoughts here. Ajpolino (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)