🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQDiscussionReassessmentReport
Reviewing initiatives:Backlog driveMentorshipReview circlesPledges
Good article nominations
Good article nominations
Shortcut

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 FAQ above 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.

GAR one-month minimum: stats analysis and proposal to reduce

[edit]
Introduction

On January 15, 2025, GAR rules were ammended so that GARs were open for a minimum of one month. Advocates for the change wanted more time for editors to volunteer to fix the article. Detractors felt that reviews didn’t need to be kept open for that long, and reviews without a response would clutter the GAR page. Since this change has been implemented for 10 months, I want to find out what happened when this change was made, and to find out if keeping GARs open longer resulted in more articles being kept. My bias before starting this study was that the one-month minimum was too long and should be reduced. I also believe that during the time of this study, I nominated the greatest number of articles at GAR, although I have not quantitatively proven this.

Methodology

Using the GAR archives, I recorded the GARs that resulted in "kept" that were created after January 15 (when the one-month change took place). I then recorded when the first editor posted a comment that indicated they wanted to work on the article. This metric was selected because GARs will not be closed if someone indicates they want to work on the article. GARs will stay open while work is ongoing, even past the one-month minimum. I then recorded the number of days difference between the review being opened and the first indication comment.

Results

184 GARs opened between January 15 and November 15 were closed as "kept". One article was closed as "kept" without additional comments (Evansville tornado outbreak of November 2005) and was not included in these results. This leaves 183 kept GARs.

This chart displays the time between the creation of the review and the first comment that indicated that someone wants to work on this:

Time distance Number of articles (cumulative) % of articles that received an indication (cumulative)
Less than one day 95 51.9
One day 108 59
Two days 124 67.8
One week 150 82
Two weeks 165 90.1
Three weeks 171 93.4
One month (30 days) 177 96.7
Older than one month 183 100
Analysis

Over 50% of articles that are eventually declared "keep" receive the first indication within 24 hours. By two days, over two-thirds of the articles had an indication posted. By two weeks, over nine-tenths had an indication. Seven articles had the first indication after the one-month minimum and would have been delisted if closed at the minimum. The GAR with the furthest distance was Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy at 40 days.

My proposal

Change the minimum amount of time a GAR can be open before delisting from one month to two weeks.

Rationale
  • When many GARs are open at the same time, it becomes difficult for editors to navigate and find articles they are interested in.
  • GAR nominators avoid nominating similar articles from the same topic at the same time: by closing GARs sooner, other articles from a similar topic can be nominated sooner.
  • The minimum amount of time an article remains open at FAR without comment is four weeks (28 days). At one month (28-31 days), GAR’s process to delist an article is longer than FAR, even though it is supposed to be a lower-stakes assessment.
  • After two weeks, the likelihood that an editor will indicate that they want to work on the article drops substantially.

I hope this was interesting information, and I look forward to feedback. Z1720 (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
I think I would support lowering the no-comment close threshold to no lower than two weeks so longer as the closer of the nomination is a different editor than the one who opened the GAR, to at least guaranty two sets of eyes on the article. (I think an editor who is closing a GAR, especially a low-participation one, needs to check the article history to make sure improvements are not occurring without mention of such at the GAR page and scan the article to verify that the problems alleged in the GAR are actually present). GA status is much more easy-come-easy-go than FAC. Since GAN operates on effectively a two-editor consensus (nominator + reviewer), then I see no reason why GAR should not operate on a two-editor consensus model as well. As to timing, I would certainly fail a GAN where significant work was needed and the nominator had made no reply for multiple weeks unless there were extentuating circumstances. We do need to be careful with how many GARs of a topic are listed at once, or in short succession after GARs closed as keep. Most of the GARs I have been involved with making the corrections to the articles in required substantial work, which can wear out an editor group. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support per HF above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well reasoned proposal. I also think HF's thoughts are very reasonable. IAWW (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The logic of the proposal checks out. I would also not object, based on the data provided above, to lowering it back to one week since an additional week beyond the first only leads to a 10% increase in the number of articles receiving input. If it is indeed the case that open GARs are rate-limiting when it comes to new GARs being opened, processing GARs that do not lead to significant article improvement more quickly means that we get to the GARs that do lead to such improvement in shorter order; in other words, the process becomes more productive from a perspective of article improvement. TompaDompa (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments It would depend on what the value of a kept GA article is compared to the value of keeping the clutter down, and the relative amount of work in resubmittong for GA against fixing an article under review. At a rough guess, there should be little difference, but do we have any statistics about how many failed articles are resubmitted and how long it takes for that to happen, and what the success rate it? I would guess that we have no useful data on any of these considerations, but if we do, we should consider them. Do we even have any idea of the value of a GA?· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a reduction to a 2 week minimum time before closure. I was opposed to the 1 month minimum waiting time from the beginning - my comment at the time was We're assessing articles, not selling guns. Forcing a 30 day hold no matter what is foolish extra bureaucracy. Searching through Archive 33 shows multiple threads lamenting the massive GAR backlog that was caused by this change. I've appealed to the community to get more involved in GAR but there hasn't been a significant difference in engagement. Most nominations end up being simple delists with little or no activity besides the initial nomination. I do agree with Hog Farm about the pace of nominations being potentially too fast. It doesn't take long to determine an article merits reassessment, but it's almost always far more work to address the issues which merited the assessment. As someone who closes GARs, I am perfectly happy to wait far longer than 2 weeks if there is work being done on the article or someone needs time. That's not what happens in most cases, as the data provided by Z1720 proves. I think two weeks is more than enough time for an interested editor to indicate their intent to work on improving an article listed at GAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose GARs are a "break glass in case of emergency" nuclear option, yet I've seen them being handed out like candy for trivial issues such as single unsourced sentences. The last thing we want to do is encourage more GARs by making them delist sooner rather than encouraging fixing the article oneself per WP:BEBOLD and WP:SOFIXIT. A month is a suitably major length of time for a major action. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I think it's clear from the thorough statistical analysis presented above that the extra time does not provide a commensurate benefit in terms of retaining GAs/closing GARs as keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with HogFarm's so longer as the closer of the nomination is a different editor than the one who opened the GAR caveat. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with HogFarm's caveat. Thanks for this wonderfully detailed write-up, Z1720! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: About the "closer is different from nominator" caveat: right now I don't close GARs that I opened or commented on, as I want a second opinion. Adding HF's stipulation wouldn't change my practices, and I think it would be a positive aspect to codify into the rules. If put in place, I would appreciate it if editors interested in the GAR process would consider patrolling the GARs so that they aren't stalled waiting for a closer or that they aren't being closed/checked by a small group of editors. Z1720 (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good point, and appears to be a good practice, but it also produces situations where an editor responds, fixes all the issues to the extent that they understand them, and leaves the article in what they consider satisfactory condition, after which nothing happens. The nominator should at least provide feedback on whether the issues they identified have been rectified, so the responding editor has some confidence that the work is done (or not, as the case may be), and an independent closer knows what to look for.
    To facilitate this process, the responding editor/s should preferably leave a message indicating that they think they have fixed the listed issues.
    A checklist template for this could be useful. Also maybe a maintenance category for unclosed GARs that have been reported as fixed.
    Also, if both nominator and responding editor/s agree that the issues have all been fixed, I see no reason why the nominator should not also close. An additional opinion is only really necessary if there is uncertainty or disagreement. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbsouthwood: I can only speak for myself, but I try to follow-up on articles after concerns are addressed. Sometimes there is a long wait because I am not pinged, so I do not know that editors are waiting for me to comment. A checklist template might be difficult, as GARs aren't a full GAN review (for example, I rarely check image licences in a GAR). Also, if there is only one concern in the article (usually uncited statements) then a checklist is probably not necessary. There are also some GARs I open where other editors post additional concerns, so I want this process to give space for those editors to also comment, rather than sending articles to GAR repeatedly. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720: FYI, I just closed a bunch more GARs last night. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All fair comment, but a template providing a checklist can have non-relevant items either deleted or checked as complete (I prefer the former) and it is a good check that the criteria of the review actually match the GA criteria and are not arbitrary or scope creep.
    Not being pinged can happen, and sometimes seems to happen even when a reply should automatically generate a ping. One doesn't want to appear rude or impatient - other things exist, but sometimes when nothing happens for long enough, everyone forgets and nothing continues to happen. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: the extra time beyond two weeks does not seem to be particularly useful. Thanks to Z1720 for the helpful statistics! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is moreso aimed at Z1720 but would this include cases where an editor has shown interest in fixing the article but has not been able to have time to do so in the two weeks? for example with Cancer pain I do intend to do what I can to fix your concerns but I'm tied up with improving Coeliac disease which I started improving a couple weeks ago. Basically if I was to say "hey I don't have the time right now for this but if you could keep this open for a month that would allow me to improve thigs, if I haven't made any edits in that month then feel free to close it" would that mean I could still have a full month to find the time to improve it? IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 07:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, even when the time period was one week, we would often leave articles open for months if there was hope they could be improved. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, we should keep nominations open of core articles waiting for someone to pick it up, and clean out most of the others after a week or so. Happy with two weeks too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GAR coordinators: It seems like this discussion might have concluded, with no comments for several days. Is there an established consensus, and is this discussion ready to be closed? Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to close a discussion I directly participated in but I personally see a consensus to drop down to a 2 week minimum. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I would have commented earlier but (as life is busy and various) I don't seem to have come by here for a few weeks ... which is precisely the issue at stake here. We aren't all machines who check GAR and GA Discussion and multiple other pages every week: a month is a much more humane timespan in which people who have taken a fortnight's holiday, or been sick, or busy at work, or ... anything else in real life, have a realistic hope of spotting something they want to contribute to. I believe this was pretty much the rationale for the one-month period, given that before that we were seeing decent articles getting the chop long before anyone actually noticed. We really don't want to go there; and moving back that way is not constructive. The argument that 9/10 articles get noticed within that frame, even if true, isn't the point: it is that the others didn't, that there is no hurry, and that the more we can catch the better. The data are actually fragmentary, too: for comparison we need to know how many were nominated, so we can see what proportion were kept (it's no good working out percentages of an unknown fraction). For all those reasons, we should not go with this honest but mistaken proposal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chiswick Chap: In answer to your comment above, from January 15 - November 15 there were 483 GARs opened: 299 closed as delist, 184 closed as keep. This means 38.1% of GARs that were opened during that period were declared kept during that time period. Please ping me if additional data is requested. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many thanks. It's good to know that the rest of us managed to save some of them; I'm sorry there wasn't more time available to rescue the others. I certainly don't think that shortening the time will serve any purpose. In particular, the GAR list is not comparable to the GAN list which is stuck until people pay attention to each item; items on the GAR list die all by themselves if neglected. There is therefore precisely no hurry required in its case, and rushing things through more quickly would make things worse not better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Chiswick Chap: Shortening the time would allow more articles from a topic that no one wants to work on to be nominated. I avoid nominating articles on similar topics to others at GAR. If no one wants to save an article, other articles in that topic have to wait a month before the next GAR. An example is Somerset articles: many articles from this area no longer meet the GA criteria and no one has stepped forward to improve them, but only 12 articles will get GAR'ed each year. While waiting to get listed, articles will still be listed as GAs even though they no longer meet the criteria. I do not think keeping an article's status when it no longer meets the criteria is a net-positive for the GA process. Delisted GAs can be renominated at GAN when improvements are complete. Editors also do not have to wait until a GAR to improve GAs: if editors care about an article's status, I recommend that they check the articles every few months and fix issues so don't have to go to WP:GAR. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • All I can say is, those of us who are trying to save GAs are already running as fast as we can. Doubling the supply will just leave us totally run off our feet. That really wouldn't be constructive; and that'sin addition to the points I made above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Chiswick Chap: I realised a while ago that I could not maintain all GAs (or even FAs, as I went through WP:URFA/2020). The deterioration in some GAs happened because no one was monitoring the articles. Some articles only get improvements at GAR because editors who care about it notice the concerns. No one editor, or small group of editors, should or could maintain all GAs. Slowing down the GAR process means that it takes longer for the 110 articles I currently have noticed, plus the thousands of articles that have not been checked yet, to potentially get the improvements it needs or to show that no one is interested in maintaining them. Not every article needs a GA badge, and the stats at WP:GAS are only meaningful if they accurately count how many articles still meet the GA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are seeking to remove GA status from as many articles as you can. I am seeking to add GA status to as many articles as I can. You say that once demoted, folks can reapply whenever they like, ignoring the fact that there is a lengthy queue for that process, and that GAN can demand substantial effort from both nominator and reviewer. Pushing ever more rework - seemingly, as much as anyone will allow you - in that direction is extremely unwelcome. Please notice that there are thus multiple reasons why the proposed cut in GAR time is undesirable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                • Where I think more balancing should be done is to focus on bringing the truly dire ones to GAR, rather than ones in more pedestrian condition. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of Antietam/1 (not nominated by Z), Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gettysburg Cyclorama/1, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mark Kellogg (reporter)/1, and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/P. G. T. Beauregard/1 were ones that I've worked on where the problems were sizable enough that the GAR led to substantial improvements with the article (Kellogg in particular had to be largely rewritten). The Gettysburg Cyclorama article led to the correction of factual errors and the Beauregard reassessment led to the removal of substantial amounts of copyright violations and material with significant ethnicity-related POV concerns. But then stuff like Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Martha Hughes Cannon/1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/E'Twaun Moore/1 are ones that I've worked on where I do not believe a GAR was warranted, with mainly sylistic issues, readily resolvable lead issues, or minimal amounts of uncited text. If we can focus on the ones in truly dire condition like the first batch, and (at least at this time) not be sending the ones with relatively minor issues to GAR, I think that would alleviate some of the concerns here. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That would likely be right. It means that, as Zxcvbnm said above, that GAR is basically an 'emergency' option, not a routine process, and to be used only when something is seriously wrong and really not going to be fixed any other way. We really should not be using the dire threat of rapid delisting to fix cases where a new/temporary/IP editor has innocently added a few uncited claims to a well-written article, overlooked because someone was out of office and someone else made a small edit on top of the additions. The fix in such a case is five minutes of tidying-up, which anyone should be able to do. And as Hog Farm has said, there are other scenarios which don't warrant GAR either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Chiswick Chap: If the articles take a five-minute clean up to fix, then why were 61% of GAs closed as delist in the time period mentioned above? My conclusion is that most articles are not five-minute fixes, but instead take several hours, days, or longer to bring up to GA standards. I wish most GARs took five minutes to fix, because then the articles could be declared keep quickly so work can begin on the next one. This discussion is not about the articles someone is interested in fixing: it is a conversation about the articles that sit at GAR without comment, and deciding how long an article should sit there without comment before we decide that someone is probably not going to work on it. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If there is a mismatch between the pace at which WP:Good articles become in need of fixes in order to meet the WP:Good article criteria and the pace at which those fixes can be carried out WP:Good article reassessment, then slowing down the rate at which they can be brought to GAR seems misguided—indeed, even counterproductive as it inevitably results in an ever-growing backlog of articles that are waiting to be brought to GAR after the need for fixes has arisen. Better then to speed the process up to reach an equilibrium point. One possible way of accomplishing this would be to increase the number of articles that can be at GAR simultaneously, so there is not a need to wait for GARs to be closed until the next one can be brought there. Another way of accomplishing it, if we want to keep the current restrictions on simultaneous GARs, is to allow for earlier closure to get rid of the hold-up for the next one. TompaDompa (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Hog Farm: I interpret this comment as asking reviewers (usually me right now) to judge how long it will take to fix up an article, even though I am not a topic expert on the article or never heard of the BLP before. This is going off topic: this proposal is for the articles where no one responds. If an article is a five-minute fix, then an editor can volunteer to fix it up and get it declared "keep" quickly, and GA has a better article. Discussions about the threshold of GARs can be a different thread below. Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of articles per section: a discussion

[edit]

A positive aspect of increasing the number of GAs is that some section headings have lots of articles. Last year, I opened a discussion about how many articles should be in each section before editors consider splitting them. One consensus of the discussion (in which only a few editors expressed opinions) was that a section could be split if there are over 200 articles, but only if there is a logical place to split it.

In the video games GA section, I did a split of video games released in 1995-1999 into 1995-1997 and 1998-1999. I split that heading first because it was the first one chronologically to have over 200 articles. It was good-faith reverted by PresN: in the edit summary, the stated reason was that other video game sections were larger, that the categories should have consisten ranges of time (though noted that Music's categories are not) and that the two year range for a category is too small. Before conducting more splits, I wanted to get more opinions from the GA community.

Questions: When should editors consider splitting GA headings? Should the video games section headings be consistent (every five years) or should different time ranges be used to keep the number of articles below an arbitrary number?

Looking forward to reading your thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we do go with a cap on section size, I would prefer aesthetically not to go with the alternating 2-year/3-year setup, but maybe 3-year groupings starting at 1990 through 2019. I don't love tiny year ranges, but I do understand that there's not a lot of great options if we don't want sections to have more than 200 articles. --PresN 15:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be fine with 3-year sections: it's a bit of a pain to set up (splitting a section into 2-and-3-year sections is easier than splitting three sections into five) so if implemented it would have to be done in one series of edits. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the title disappears off the top of the screen (on standard Vector2022 width) that is not ideal for easily remembering where you are in the sea of blue. CMD (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been privately maintaining a variation of the section dividing the decades into early, middle and late segments (visible here), my reasoning being that thirds of a decade have clearer specific cultures than whole ones; nobody's going to mistake the late 90s for the early 90s, for example. If we were to do further splitting, I would suggest a format similar to what I'm using, though my method might come off as somewhat persnickety to some, since the divisions occur within a part of a year rather than between years (the divide between early and mid occurs at April/May XXX3, and the divide between mid and late occurs at August/September XXX6). A simpler and slightly more agreeable alternative might be to go by a "3-4-3" format for each decade that's a bit more clear cut, an example being 1990-92, 93-96, and 97-99. I have no strong feelings whether or not we go through with any split at all, but I figured suggestions for that route would be helpful. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no qualms with irregular time ranges, but of course if someone is willing to do the work of reformatting to implement a shift to 3-year groupings, I would prefer that for aesthetics. If we go with the latter approach, I agree with PresN's pitch to do ten 3-year groupings covering 1990 through 2019. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally I'd prefer if the video game sections were split by console generations, although that may not be a very well defined term. If we end up splitting them by smaller time frames, one question I'd ask is how early access games (more specifically, fully released games that were formerly in EA) would be handled? Would we want to use the date the game enters EA, or the date the game fully releases? What would happen if the two dates were in different time frames? Gramix13 (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for easing the backlog of reassessments

[edit]

Looking at the GAR page, it seems to me like a large number of articles listed there are being reassessed because of issues that were present at the time of the review. (I was specifically motivated to write this by Bury F.C., but it's far from the only one). It seems silly to me to list articles here with the expectation that someone will work on them to bring them back to their former glory, if they were never good in the first place. If I want a mediocre article worked on, should I get a friend to pass it as a GA and then list it here for reassessment in the hope someone will work on it?

Instead I propose some sort of mechanism to annul problematic reviews that didn't address an obvious issue that existed at the time of the review, to make it as if the article was never good in the first place (which it wasn't). It's much easier to take a glance at the reviewed versions of recent GAs to check whether there are any issues the reviewer hasn't addressed than find time to improve the article. Additionally, the nominator is not going to complain about an incorrectly passed GA as they would for an incorrectly failed one, so a mechanism for outside observers to object might be good.

Thoughts? Is there some reason I've overlooked why this is a terrible idea?

(Courtesy ping to Z1720 as the most active editor in this area.) JustARandomSquid (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove stuck/malformed GA entry: Hushmand Dehqan

[edit]

Hello admins. Could you please help remove a stuck and malformed entry from the current Good Article nominations list?

I have fixed the nomination on the article's talk page (`Talk:Hushmand Dehqan`), but the bot is unable to process the correct nomination because of a faulty, stuck entry in the main list.

The faulty entry to be removed is:

`Hushmand Dehqan (talk | history | start review) (0 reviews, 999 GAs) Example (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)`

The error persists because of the inclusion of the placeholder `Example` and the bot's inability to create the review page. Removing this line should allow the bot to process the nomination correctly from the talk page.Mojgoon (talk) 08:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the malformed template from the article talk page. In the future when nominating Mojgoon, please follow the instructions at WP:GANI. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help in removing the malformed template from the Talk page of Hushmand Dehqan. Mojgoon (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you reinstated the malformed template Mojgoon?? As I said above, please follow the instructions at WP:GANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I apologize for bothering you. I tried several times to renominate my article for GA status, but it did not work. The WP:GANI page did not help me either. Could you please assist me? Thank you.
Best regards, Mojgoon (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please write the correct code for the GA2 renomination right here for me? Thank you again for your patience. Mojgoon (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As outlined clearly at WP:GAN/I#N2 Mojgoon, please copy {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Philosophy and religion}} and paste it at the top of the relevant talkpage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's done. Mojgoon (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the future you could use this script to automatically do everything properly IAWW (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWEEPS progress

[edit]

In 2023, SWEEPS2023 was established as a collaborative effort to evaluate good articles promoted in 2009 or earlier that might have unreferenced text. It started with 380 articles and is now below 25. Thank you to everyone who participated in identifying or fixing up these articles, and we appreciate any help with evaluating the last articles.

As a reward, we have given SWEEPS more work! The next iteration of the effort, SWEEPS2025, has been set up to evaluate good articles promoted between 2010 and 2016 that might have uncited text. The project is starting with 214 articles from a variety of topics. The effort is collaborative, so anyone can get involved with evaluating and fixing up articles on this list. Feel free to post below or on the project's talk page if there are any questions. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on AI fact-checking quality articles

[edit]

The Signpost has published an article that they have titled "AI finds errors in 90% of Wikipedia's best articles", which has brought about two conversations:

Though the piece is framed around featured articles, the use of AI in supplementing spot-checking pertains to GA as well. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 03:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be careful not to conflate this with spot-checking. Throwing the article into an AI is presumably a look at the entire article at whatever level of detail the AI uses, whole article rather than sampling. Further it is specifically looking for (supposed) factual errors rather than a more holistic check on source use. A useful tool but not a 1:1 replacement. CMD (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. AI can be really good for quick flagging TSI issues too through. Obviously only for flagging to be followed by human review. IAWW (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That our articles contain some errors means that there is always something left to improve, always something for someone to come and fix, and always something else to discover. Fallible beings can't create perfect articles. What we can do is create living documents that are always growing, always improving, and always changing. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 12:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to work on a mini-project that goes through all GAs and FAs and uses AI to find small errors. Seems very productive. IAWW (talk) 12:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to look through existing GAs perhaps check them as part of the GA sweep mentioned above. CMD (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to close the GA discussion page

[edit]

I somehow messed up closing the review for Talk:Saiyuud_Diwong/GA1 - please could someone let me know where I've gone wrong & maybe close the review? I'm still quite new to reviewing. Thanks in advance Lajmmoore (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lajmmoore, you have successfully closed the review. The only thing you have done differently from any other close is reverted GANReviewTool's hatting of the page, but hatting is optional and doesn't impact whether the review is closed. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 22:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much - yes its' the hatting I was trying to do. Do you know why I could hat it with the GANReviewer tool before I did the revert, but not after? (out of interest more than anything) Lajmmoore (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool#Algorithm, it looks like the tool needs {{GA nominee}} to be on the talk page for it to allow any actions, which you removed (with the assistance of the tool) in your close. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 22:41, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadmau5 Reassesment

[edit]

Hello, some 8 months ago, I submitted a GAR for the article Deadmau5. Following its unceremonious speedy closure, I think it is actually ready this time. Would it be inappropriate to submit it for yet another reassessment, or should I wait longer? Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 13:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would think if you have genuine concerns you can articulate, there is nothing stopping you from submitting a GAR. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, it's not currently a GA. So, what you want is to nominate it for GA, not for re-assessment (that's for existing GAs that one doesn't think meets the criteria). If you believe your article has been improved enough to meet GA standards, then you can renominate it. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98: yes, I want to submit it for Good Article because I think it meets the criteria :) I am sorry for the confusion, I wrote 'reassessment' because, while I was aware that there are two different processes for GA review, an assessment of the Deadmau5 article so shortly after its quickfail would be a kind of 'reassessment' by definition, not by process. Thank you for the go ahead! Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 15:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GoatLordServant: I added some citation needed templates to the article that should be resolved before a GAN. There's also some sources that are flagged as unreliable that might need to be replaced like "Sportskeeda" and "Gameskinny.com". Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I'm not confident that the Sportskeeda source needs removal as it was added per this discussion. It is also a specific thing that has been difficult to source on the article for years, apparently. Either way, if the Sportskeeda and Games Kinny source are still unreliable for his uncontroversial cameo appearences in games, would it be suitable to omit the mentions entirely? As for the CNs, thank you for those, I could have those resolved pretty soon. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 15:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GoatLordServant that discussion was carried out by two editors with sub-100 edits that actively goes against our consensus on Wikipedia:SPORTSKEEDA. There is no indication that this source is any more reliable than a standard Sportskeeda source, and if that info cannot be sourced otherwise, it's probably better off being removed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly omit information when there is no high-quality source for it. It might be possible to cite the game itself with {{cite media}}, but if no one covered the cameo it is probably not major enough to be needed in the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys so much!! Still newer to the 'improving an entire article' thing and, as per all three of your advice, the cameos are now omitted. Thank you. :) Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant(Talk) 04:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=1326054856"