Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Good article nominations

WT:GAN

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

See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4

Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

GA help: 1, 2

Nominations/Instructions: 1

Search archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Kevin L. McCrudden

There have been several attempts for this name / person that have been rejected or blocked for some reason. I am Kevin L. McCrudden. I have been approached by people that want me to pay them for a Wiki page, which I know is not acceptable, but I do not know why the other attempts have been blocked? 75.167.101.4 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, this isn't the right place to ask, but in the meantime Wikipedia:Notability may prove a helpful page. CMD (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Happy Holidays. 2600:4808:10D6:1E01:9C4D:E1C0:D118:6463 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with finishing a GA review

Hi. I finished the GA review of Kiddush levana. My initial edit for the review is at Talk:Kidduah levana/GA1

It seems that I did not follow the correct steps, e.g., the fail notice did not appear on the nominator's talk page. If somebody has a chance to glance over my edits, I'd like to learn from my mistakes. ProfGray (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fail notice appeared on the user's talk page at 20:24. It might that the fail was missed by the previous sweep of the bot? SSSB (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The next GAN backlog drive

Is scheduled for the coming January. As in, two-and-a-half weeks from now. I'm happy to pitch in as a co-co-ordinator, but I'm pretty swamped right now and would strongly prefer not to be Responsible for it - anyone want to pitch in? -- asilvering (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering My availability for mid January is limited due to finals but I’m able to pitch in during the second half and early days of January if the offer still stands. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IntentionallyDense please do! It's the before-January stuff that is most important - setting up the drive, putting out notices, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to help out with that aspect as well. Let me know what you need help with and when. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 23:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that is "all of it" and "whenever you think it's appropriate"! I don't plan on having much to do with it if I don't have to. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help- the previous drive had made me realise I really like seeing more and more GANs reviewed. I think I would be available enough from now throughout January, so time shouldn't really be a problem for me. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Both of you, see Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024 for the most recent similar drive (every article counts, every reviewer equal, bonus points for reviewing older articles). You may want to dig back through the archives of this talk page to see if there are any suggestions you can pick up from March of this year, when we had that big discussion about how we might do backlog drives differently. I've substituted the old way of giving bonus points for word count with the method we used in the last drive, which I think worked really well, but if you hate that or anything else, change it! -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an emphasis on older articles as it was proposal 6 in that discussion, by adding a progress table for it in the progress section (which is commented out for the time being). @IntentionallyDense: feel free to message me here or on my talk page (or WP:Discord) for co-ordination reasons anytime. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWhoFan91, I hope you don't mind, but I've set up the Progress section as it has been for past all-nomination drives (with emphasis on old ones). The GAN changes template isn't going to work properly with only a single "Old nominations" column; it's built for two columns, though the "changes from yesterday" and "changes from start" columns only work against a one of those first two columns. It's important that people know the total outstanding nominations. If you do want, in addition to that, the number of unreviewed old nominations rather than the number of unreviewed nominations regardless of age, that isn't available from the stats at the top of the GAN Report page, and has to be counted each day at midnight by some other methodology. (It's easier to backtime the Report page to midnight UTC by checking the history of the GAN page itself; you don't have to be there at midnight. I expect tracking the old noms will be more labor intensive.) In addition to the progress table, last March I also took care of the old noms table, but it looks like you have that under control. If you'd like to be the one in charge of all this, just say the word and I'll step back. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can probably calculate the total change in old nominations by checking the changes in the table for old qualifying articles, or by checking this page- might be a bit harder, but very manageable. Thanks for telling me all this- I, and the other co-ord, can do it, but you can help if you find any other change that we should make. (Unless you would like to be a co-ord this time around too?) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you avoid giving yourself extra work that has to be done manually. Don't give yourself extra work until you have some experience with what normal levels of work looks like! Speaking of, @Ganesha811, @Vacant0, any interest in helping co-ord this January? -- asilvering (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine- just need to check the number that remain unopened, and add the ones that have been opened but not finished, which should be 7-8 articles at the peak of the backlog, so just 8 small clicks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm happy to help again! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ganesha811! (go add your name!) -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very inactive for some time already and I'm unsure whether I'd be able to help with coordinating the next GAN Backlog Drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks so much for all your help with the previous ones! -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A graph for the backlog report

So, I was checking the backlog report, and I was wondering if we could depict it in a graph (like the graph at the NPP talk page), as the changes are harder to visualize with just numbers. Also, maybe another line could be added in the same graph which visualises the number of noms>90 days, because there should be an emphasis on reducing wait times between nom and review too? Also, the January backlog drive might be a good opportunity to visualise just how much effect the drives have. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWhoFan91, we used to include graphs, but the Wikipedia-wide graphing software has been out of commission for years now, and no estimated time for it to be rewritten and made available. Here at GAN, we dropped the graphs from Progress since it just showed an error; I'm guessing that graphs like the one you linked to at NPP are created off-wiki, turned into an image, and uploaded for inclusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, thanks for let me know. Yeah, I just checked, a bot updates that graph every week at NPP by uploading a new one. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question for independence of source from subject

This is for Saint Peter's Church. For [1], it cites the The Catholic Spirit, which appears to be owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, who also 'owns' (administer?) Saint Peter's Church. Is it considered unreliable? Is it not independent from the subject? Also do note that this is my first time doing a GA review, so maybe add that to the nominations page Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 02:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imbluey2, it may not be independent from the subject but that does not necessarily make it unreliable. It is used to cite two points, 1) the date and person involved in the origin of the parish, and 2) current uses. These are not items I would be overwary of using a non-independent source for. CMD (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article mentorship

Just a heads up that there are three pending requests at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship. There are also three that were recently archived without a response at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship/Archive 1 which should really get looked at since the new reviewers went in on their own without guidance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]