This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN), good article reassessment (GAR), 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.

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, 34, 35, 36, 37

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. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I wrote a somewhat different user essay (How to stay motivated when reviewing Good Articles), encouraging the reviewers to be a bit more selfish. The simple assumption is that happy reviewers equate to more reviews. Not sure if this essay is helpful, but it's a try. Input welcome! Thanks, Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Quite good! These are helpful ideas. I made a few copy-edits to your page (feel free to revert them).

• Would you like to touch on the responsibility to complete the review and the goal to wrap it up in around seven days?

• The text touches on it in the second sentence ("responsibility and commitment") and provide a possible workaround (review strategy #2). I heard from editors who avoid taking a review because they are not sure they can really finish it, so this is definitely an issue for some. Do you think we should stress the responsibility aspect a bit more (overdoing it – becoming too selfish and motivation-focused – is obviously no good for a collaborative project)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your instinct to not preach is probably the right one: touch on the reviewer's commitment and goal, then move on. It's good that the essay is focusing on the reviewer finding ways to have fun when they review. Prhartcom (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that the essay could use a closing section. Even if only one positive, motivating sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, yeah. I'm not good with closing sentences and can't think about one atm, but will add it as soon as something comes to mind. And of course, if you already have an idea, please feel free to add it. And thanks again for the feedback, much appreciated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps add to the list of motivations not only "give back" but also "pay it forward"? (I've seen people do this.)

• Added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a good time to remind the reviewer to suggest changes rather than demand changes? And to collaboratively fix simple issues themselves? (Sometimes it's quicker than explaining.)

• Excellent suggestions – I took both on-board. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that motivation is important. All reviewers should read this. Prhartcom (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: Excellent – thank you very much for your copy edit and your suggestions, and see my replies above! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, I enjoyed reading your essay and think it is valuable to all good article nominators and reviewers. I have recently decided to get back into doing good article reviews after having years long hiatus from doing them. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 22:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While I am reviewing an article Arithmetic billiards in the discussion, apparently a source from here [1] uses Wikipedia as a reference. And surprisingly, the nominator could not find it, yet I could. What bugs me is, can such a source still be considered reliable? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an academic peer-reviewed source then I do not see why citing WP would make it less reliable. A.Cython(talk) 01:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the authors, it appears to be, the authors are all faculty members from the University of Luxembourg. I could be wrong here, but I doubt that something like this, that's authored by faculty members from a university wouldn't be peer-reviewed. Again, sorry if I'm wrong. _{S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits)} 01:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask them. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:08, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i'm concerned about the review at dersu uzala (1975) (nom), at the nomination we have had a content dispute, for which i asked for a second opinion. in the notice for a second opinion the reviewer commented that the second person should take over reviewing the article. as a result i've asked twice for the review to be closed as failed; the reviewer denied this request and accused me of WP:GAMING and they left a notice asking for a sysop to comment on whether my actions constitute GAMING. quote: "by your asking to simply close the GAN without any further appreciable work on the article from you, for the purpose of then directly re-opening it with the sole purpose of somehow getting a clean slate with another editor seems a poor idea." it feels to me like a bfe accusation. as far as i can tell from the gan guidelines there's been nothing wrong with my request. the diffs to the article demonstrate that i've been willing to compromise and followed the majority of the advice of the reviewer.--Plifal (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment, but the idea that you want to keep a review open but don't want to review the article is bizarre Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear from ErnestKrause why they consider the explicit GAN instructions "If a review stalls or there is disagreement over the interpretation of the good article criteria...you may ask the reviewer to fail the review, then renominate the article to get a different reviewer to be WP:GAMING ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Plifal: I closed the GA for you. You are free to immediately resubmit it to GA in order to find a second reviewer. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!--Plifal (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all !

I hope you’re all doing well. Well, I am planning to do Good Article nomination drive in February 2026 under the theme for which I need to hear from you. I would really appreciate your feedback on it before I proceed. CP @It is a wonderful world, Bgsu98, and Asilvering: Thank You ! Fade258 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GAD says that the upcoming drive should have no theme. This time, I think that we should concentrate on making the drive as effective as possible, considering that previous several drives did not really lower the backlog. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was. I think we should keep attractive theme to attract more reviewers and this time there's no any drive in February which may help in making this drive more successful than previous one. Fade258 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is this to encourage nominations or reviews? Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, To reduce the number of GAN with quality reviews. Fade258 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One idea I came up with would be to encourage a review of at least one article from every subcategory. Bonus points and a custom barnstar for completing a full set. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that's a good idea. I think it also helps to reduce the long standing article from each subcategory. Fade258 (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still do the scoring as normal (extra points for older nominations, etc.), but then if someone accomplishes a full set by the end of the drive (we can create a template that users can use on the score page to keep track of their reviews), then we can bonus points. If a category is by chance depleted, then users can substitute another review from a duplicate category. I'll try and put together a mockup template later today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:03, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not get you properly. But regarding points that would be fine. I respect your idea which is cool. We also try to do some extra things similar to this time NPP drive. Fade258 (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is a WP:BILORV challenge (Jack of all trades) which has surprisingly low completion overall. It would help get the backlogs in all small categories down, which could be quite nice. But I don't think it will do much to attack the backlog in the large categories. —Kusma (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to help reduce the backlog. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You are also free to give your opinion about the drive. Fade258 (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Was this not beneficial feedback that I am in favour of us having one? I'm not sure a theme is all that important, rather that there is some incentive to complete quality reviews Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, It will be a good theme though. Ohh, That was a theme. My bad I didnot get it properly. Fade258 (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One idea I had for this or a future backlog: extra points for reviewing articles where the GAN nominator has a positive review-to-nomination ratio. For example, in the backlog drive I would get an extra 0.5 points if I reviewed an article nominated by an editor with 20 reviews and 19 GAs, per the GA editor query. Since each editor's number of reviews and GAs are on the GAN page already, I think it will be easier to implement. This might encourage nominators to review and improve their stats while rewarding editors who have been helping clear the backlog. It doesn't have to be implemented as a theme, but just as an added incentive to review articles. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd support including it in the upcoming drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me and willing to include it in the upcoming drive. Could you please provide the criteria for bonus points? Fade258 (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fade258: I suggest keeping it simple: at the time the review is started, if the nominator has more reviews than GAs, the reviewer will get an extra 0.5 points. If there's any doubt, preference should be to give the bonus, which will be determined by the coordinators. 03:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720, Please sign your comment and thank your for the opinion. Fade258 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  They did sign, they simply did one too many tildes (~). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Ohh. So, I didnot see their name over there. Fade258 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add your name, if you want to coordinate? Fade258 (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• You know I'll help you out again. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bgsu98. Thank you for step in. Fade258 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Count me in... Vestrian24Bio 13:17, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vestrian24Bio, Thank you for step in as a coordinator. Fade258 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Participated in the October 2025 one, was super fun, wouldn't mind helping out as a coordinator! Crystalite13 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that I had was to encourage reviewers to try and review one article from each category. This template would allow reviewers to identify each article they've reviewed in its respective category, and then provide a spot for moderators to award the points (the same as has been done in the past). If reviewers do other reviews in a category they have already covered, they can list them below the table. At the end of the month, bonus points can be awarded for each category covered, plus super bonus points for anyone who completes the table. I also suggest a special barnstar for completing a full set.

In the event that there are not sufficient articles in a particular category (chemistry and math appear to have very few entries, for example), reviewers can substitute another article from a duplicated category at the end. No one should be penalized for a lack of available articles to review in a particular category.

Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good for me but what would be the criteria for giving extra or bonus points. Fade258 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect that only a few reviewers will go for this, and this template will take up a lot of space so I don't think this should be placed on the main drive page. Rather, a sub-page can be created where editors who want to be awarded this prize can place this template and the articles for consideration. Z1720 (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, a separate subpage, maybe one for each participant would be better or at least; participants grouped by alphabetic or something.. A table with links to each user's subpage (with sub-section anchor if grouped) should be placed in the main drive's page instead.. Vestrian24Bio 13:16, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

100 bonus points and bonus barnstar for completing a full set? Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:40, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will create burden for the reviewer in completing the full set. Fade258 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is challenging; that's the whole point. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: Instead of giving bonus points, why don't we have a special "all categories award" that is only given to editors who complete this? It might make this less complicated, and the participant can apply to the award themselves, so it is less work for the coordinators. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This idea came from a conversation I had with @User:Lee Vilenski elsewhere (I can't remember where), where he was proposing an award for creating or promoting an article to GA in every category, and I countered with the slightly less daunting idea of reviewing a GA article in every category. I just would have no way of designing the award; if someone else is amenable to doing that, it would be great! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

T'was for WP:SLAM Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 37#Grand Slam, if anyone is interested. TompaDompa (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the sensible way to do this. Have participants fill out the table themselves to apply for the special award. -- asilvering (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what if we make a split between the two ideas-if you get a review in every category, you get the Barnstar and a set amount of bonus points, like 10 or 15? Crystalite13 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98, @Z1720. Would you want to coordinate this drive? Fade258 (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fade258: I will be too busy to coordinate this drive. Z1720 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720. No worries. Fade258 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that a special award would be preferable and I threw one together here: {{Good Article Grand Slam Reviewer}} (t · c) buIdhe 22:02, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe: Very cool. And very nice of you! But this is a big undertaking; how about adding some gold-leaf to that barnstar? That seems to be the thing nowadays. 😉 Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

maybe a multi-colored one, or some little images to represent each category. Crystalite13 (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98, regarding the "no one should be penalized" thing, I think it probably makes more sense to grant the award at some proportion of the total possible categories. So for example you could set 80% as the bar. That would still be a pretty tough goal to shoot for, and then you have to worry less about edge cases like "what if someone submits a GAN for Agriculture on the last day of the drive?" etc. -- asilvering (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have been reviewing "Christopher (The Sopranos)", and was actually almost done with the review, but the nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a potential sockpuppet. They have appealed it, but I’m not sure they’ll be let back on, so I’m here to ask, what am I supposed to do in situations like these? Should i automatically fail the article, or should I wait? Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 11:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For me, if you've completed the review, ping the relevant WikiProject(s), let them know it has been reviewed, there are outstanding issues, you'll put it on hold for a week, and if no work has been done, fail it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 12:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, just from looking at the review so far, I'd close it and move on. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]