Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

Moving sections (sport)

Hi guys - I know I've asked this previously, but the cue sports section (within other sports) now has 200 entries. Cricket has a section of its own, and has 51 less GA articles. Do you think we could swap them around? I get that cue sports aren't quite as populated as some of our other topics, such as football or motorsport (I'm working on it though!), but it is significantly larger than one we already have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, if I recall you asked back in the Vector 2010 era, we are in the bold new Vector 2022 world where the lists are vertically compressed. I would support creating a lv3 Cue sports heading in recognition of the substantial work done in that topic, and the usability of the lists. Please don't do it boldly though, lv3 might have technical ramifications. However, I see no reason it can't be split into multiple lv5s now, that can all be moved together later if there is consensus to split. I would appreciate a split by sport, I saw at a glance some pool and some snooker, there might be others, but it's not easy to tell from some event titles, and obviously impossible to just tell from the biographies. As for downgrading Cricket, interesting question and we are about to lose another GA there, but doesn't need to happen to split off Cue sports. CMD (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I wouldn't make the change myself. There are a few issues with doing changes by specific sport, as there's quite a bit of overlap. Almost all snooker players have played pool or billiards (and vise versa). The other issue is that we have "snooker" but then also a mismatch of all other cue sports. We'd have to have an "other cue sports" topic, which I'm not a fan of as it suggests it's lesser than snooker.

I do think there is a suitable bio Vs non-bio split which would be suitable if there was a level 3 header for it. (~60 bios, with the remainder split between tournaments , governance and articles about the different games). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't mind a bio split, mostly coming from the angle of being a bit more informative to those less familiar with the various sports in question. CMD (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

GAN page

Squirtle and Pikachu GAN review page should probably be deleted, its a little odd for only 15 edits user to review an comprehensive article like Pikachu. 2001:4455:36D:9100:4525:7C00:7FBC:AB4B (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

These are different users, and the Squirtle GA has already been closed. CMD (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

QPQ discussion space

Is there a page where people looking for a QPQ (GA review for a GA review) can seek out one another, if not, should it be created or would that be discouraged? GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

In the recent proposal drives (check the talk page archives), QPQ proposals did not come close to passing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Those proposals were for mandated QPQ. It sounds like GMH is looking for a space to discuss voluntary QPQ. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

See proposal #4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No, there isn't, and suggestions to create an "official" page of this type were discussed and did not find widespread support, and many people are skeptical that it is a good idea at all. —Kusma (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be really nice to have a page for voluntary, informal QPQ. Skyshiftertalk 13:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the reasons the GA process had a bad reputation a decade ago was the practice of mutual positive reviews with minimal scrutiny. So any structure for QPQ should have something in place to prevent low quality reviews and quick passes. —Kusma (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Second opinion: Vinland Saga

Hello, this is exactly what it says. I passed this article for the Vinland Saga anime series far too quickly (combination of factors, including should've known better), as pointed out by Reidgreg. When I raised the possibility of a GAR, they were hesitant due to how recent the GA was and recommended I bring the subject up here. Thinking back, I was wrong to pick up and review the article as I was then, and a second opinion or re-review of the article is needed. ProtoDrake (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi ProtoDrake, thank you very much for bringing this up here. Regarding the review, Talk:Vinland Saga (TV series)/GA1 is unfortunately insufficient, it does not indicate any review of the article. The article should receive a full review (see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles). Regarding steps, this is recent enough (12 May) that I don't think a GAR is needed, the review pass can simply be reverted. You are the only editor (besides Christiebot) of the review page, so you could tag it as WP:G7 if you still feel it wrong to pick up the review, and do not want to do a full review and would like someone else to instead. (You could also I suppose tag it as G7 and reopen it yourself again, if for some reason you want to both review it yourself and have a technically fresh start.) If you have questions about reviewing, you can always raise it here or discuss with a WP:GAMENTOR. Best, CMD (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Mysterious auto-failure

See this notice on my Talk. I believe this happened because the page was moved (undiscussedly), thus making the nomination page appear not to exist, since it is under the older page title. The page's Talk itself doesn't show it as having failed. In any case, I'd like to just erase the nomination, since no review ever took place, and it's either falsely shown as failed or as awaiting a second opinion (when no first was ever given). Zanahary (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary, don't you want the article reviewed at GAN? We could "erase the nomination", but that would lose all of its seniority. It was indeed the page move that caused the problem, because while the article moved, the review page is still under the article's original name; I'm not sure whether it's best to see if the article gets moved back, or just move the review page now, and let it get moved back to its original name if the current request to restore the original name prevails. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe let's wait until we see the result of the page move, but I would rather just start again without seniority than have it marked as second opinion needed, which is a designation I imagine scares off any would-be reviewers who aren't very experienced with the process. I think it's enticing enough a topic that the loss of seniority would be alright. Zanahary (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It can be started again with seniority by simply editing the timestamp in the nominations template. However, it looks as if the problem is that the page mover agrees to reverse the move but cannot do so for technical reasons? If so, and there's no disagreement about moving the page back, I can do that -- anyone with the page mover right (which includes all admins and a few others) can do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you! Zanahary (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)