Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions

Question

Are the rules of this years GA-Cup the same as the ones last year? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonas Vinther: Hey Jonas, welcome back! We have made several changes to the scoring system which can be viewed here. We have also made some minor changes to the general rules. If you have any questions feel free to ask. :) --Dom497 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic review

I happened to notice that Talk:Sumgait pogrom/GA1, a nomination that was reviewed today, was also listed. Not a single issue was found—not a typo, not any grammatical issues, nothing. As I have commented there to the reviewer, JohnGormleyJG, who started GAN reviewing a couple of days ago, this is an extremely rare occurrence, and indeed I found an issue that should have been noted and fixed prior to approval (see my comment there). Worse, I found either a copyvio or what is extremely close paraphrasing—certainly a violation of GA requirements—and I can't imagine that there isn't more to be fixed. Given the near-incomprensible closing statement, I think this nomination should be carefully reviewed by the judges right away, perhaps the approval should be rolled back until the issues are addressed, and some mentoring for the new reviewer is probably in order as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't seem to understand what the problem is? -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 19:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnGormleyJG and BlueMoonset: Whether or not there are more issues in the article, I'm not really worried about right now. If anything, this review meets quick pass criteria a), "the review is started and passed shortly after with no comments. Nominations that are short in length are still expected to have some sort of comments from the reviewer; every article always has room for improvement".--Dom497 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dom497, if the GA Cup is truly not worried about the quality of the reviews conducted under its aegis and the listing of articles that clearly violate the Good Article guidelines, then the Cup has a fundamental flaw in its design that undermines the meaning of what a Good Article is supposed to be. I find that very sad, and in the case of ignoring potential copyvios, downright irresponsible. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've run it through Earwig's copyvio detector (see here). Although the scores are worryingly high it does look like they are false positives from the first two looked at. I can't easily look at sources at the moment - will take a look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: That's not what I meant at all. All I meant was that since there was already an obvious violation in the rules, there was no need to to check for the copyvios since the review would not be accepted either way. Never did I say (or mean to say) that I don't care about review quality. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dom497: I apologies for the confusion, I am a bit unsure, is the review being accepted or not. Thanks -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 13:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dom497, thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Cas Liber, I asked Nikkimaria to take a look, since she's such a good judge of close paraphrasing and copyvio. She said, I noted some close paraphrasing but far more instances of material that was unsourced or not supported by the given citation. She is ready to open a good article reassessment, because of the clear problems with the article. JohnGormleyJG, given what Dom497 has said, the review is not being accepted for the GA Cup, which means it isn't eligible for points. As far as the actual review is concerned, the article is listed—but it will go through a formal reassessment process, and may be delisted at the end of it. I would strongly suggest that you seek out a mentor to check your reviews before you take the final step of listing them and otherwise give you good guidance in the process, given the issues found here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah ok, Nikkimaria is good at these things - @JohnGormleyJG: the advice given is sound. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you also double check the reviewers review Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA1. I've tried to relist it as a reassessment here but would appreciate any help (not sure if I transcluded it correctly) and clarifications on accurate GA criteria. Thanks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winner 42 has posted retirement notices

The GAN talk page has noted that Winner 42 has posted a retirement notice on his pages, and has set up an enforcement to prevent logins (until the year 3000, as it happens, though someone has posted a workaround on Winner 42's talk page). There were five nominations in progress (as noted there and here). I have no idea how you want to handle the two that had effectively been completed (I've closed both as unsuccessful), but two were opened but have no comments, and a fifth remains incomplete:

Talk:Armenia–Croatia relations/GA1: nominator hadn't edited since June; review said there was a lot of work; closed as unsuccessful
Talk:Croatian parliamentary election, 1990/GA1: nominator hadn't edited since June; review said there was a lot of work; closed as unsuccessful
Talk:Richie Benaud/GA1: opened but no review was ever done
Talk:Kanae Yamamoto (artist)/GA1: opened but no review was ever done
Talk:John Hagee/GA1: opened and initial review done (a number of issues found), but nominator had not yet responded and a new reviewer will be needed to complete the process

BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the Hagee review was closed at the request of the nominator with the FailedGA template. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring of the Wugapodes review

Please note that I have awarded User:Wugapodes a full 20 date points for their review of Obergefell v. Hodges. The first review should never have been closed - the reviewer withdrew and then, incorrectly, closed the nomination instead of leaving it open for another reviewer. As BlueMoonset commented, this action affected the article's seniority. Looking at the listing of oldest nominations for when Wugapodes began the review, the article would have been listed their had not the initial reviewer closed it inappropriately. I thus have awarded Wugapodes the full 20 points for the age of the nomination.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced score?

When I look at the Pools page, it appears that Cwmhiraeth's one approved review is being listed under Cyclonebiskit, since the latter has no entries on the Submissions yet but has been credited with a review and exactly the same points, while the former doesn't yet have any score on said page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're correct; thanks for the catch. Fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]