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.

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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

For those who read the Report, what do you think of a change from listing Old nominations over 30 days to over 90 days? This would change just that one section from a list of 500 nominations that were added 30 days ago or longer to a list of just over 100 nominations that were added 90 days ago or longer, helping the Report considerably; people can't manage more than that. Prhartcom (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of think 30 days is a sensible ambition, no matter how distant. I'd prefer to create "Very old nominations", "Ancient nominations", etc. to split it up rather than exclude everything younger than 90 days. CMD (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't that long ago that 30 days was a realistic amount of time to wait for a review, especially for those who do lots of reviews. I can't remember the last time I had one that was less than three months get reviewed. I wonder if there is not a better way to encourage the amount down, rather than change the goalposts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI update: Wugapodes and I have just made minor improvements to the Report. Please let us know if anything is not okay. Prhartcom (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 80 reassessments currently open, of which about half have been open for the minimum month. I don't have time tonight, but the older ones could really use attention from those familiar with the GA process to start moving some of these towards a consensus. Hog Farm _talk 03:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a huge burden on the already seriously-strained resources available here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something is up with the transclusion. Kempegowda International Airport is at the top for me, despite being an old one and already closed. CMD (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It happens when a reassessment is reopened after closure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed 29 reassessments; hopefully we can get more eyes on the remainder. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hitting a wall with things that look ready for closure but have not quite hit their 1 month timeline yet. I'll try to poke some assessments along this weekend. Unfortunately this is an inevitable side-effect of mandating a 1 month waiting time. I hate to ask people to nominate things less, because that's obviously not a good answer, but we only have a handful of people closing things (and I do acknowledge I haven't been as active at GAR as I'd like to be). But anyone can weigh in on a nomination or try to improve articles. That only requires basic editing knowledge and really helps with forming a consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a very useful job. It's not obvious how we can work with a shorter timescale given the general staffing shortage here; we could I guess have a "SNOW CLOSE" feature to our policy, i.e. permit early closure if it's totally obvious that everyone agrees on a keep or whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done IAR closes before one month if there's a clear consensus to keep; if the issues have been fixed I see no point to keep it wrapped up in red tape for weeks. Hog Farm _talk 20:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current there are three weightlifters, namely: Tham Nguyen, Zoe Smith, and Solfrid Koanda, who are GAs. They are listed in the "Sport miscellanea" section. Would it be more apt to make another section for weightlifting/Olympic weightlifting? Arconning (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For only three entries, I don't think that's worthwhile. I don't know the exact number I'd say merits its own section, but it's definitely higher than three. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sections that have less, would I be misunderstanding something? Arconning (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the one-article sections should be merged. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit disorganised as there wasn't a formal system in the past. I found a section of zero articles once! However, there have been discussions on this over the past few years (cue sports for example, and for the record I was involved) and we have gone with lv 4/5/6 sections of somewhere between 20 and 200. CMD (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does seem goofy to have a bunch of 1-entry headings. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible there were formerly more articles in those sections, but most were either delisted or promoted to FA. But as others have said, if there are tiny sections like that we should pursue upmerging them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current subsections with only a single entry: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology#Transport by region, Wikipedia:Good articles/Geography and places#Antarctica, Wikipedia:Good articles/Geography and places#South America, Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama#Podcasting, Wikipedia:Good articles/Music#Jazz compositions, Wikipedia:Good articles/Music#2025 songs, Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#vaccines, Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation#Archery, Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation#Handball, Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation#Softball, Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation#Squash, Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships of Belgium, Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships of Belgium, Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships of Chile, Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships of Iceland, Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships of Indonesia, Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships of Norway, Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Warships of Portugal.

Of these, I can see the case for keeping the Antarctica and South America ones (dividing places by continent is natural; there's a fixed small number of options, and merging them into a two-article "places on other continents" set seems to make no sense) and the 2025 songs one (we can reasonably expect this group to be expanded soon: we already have 54 good articles on 2024 songs!) Others seem good candidates for merging (all of the various small "Warships of" sets into a broader "other warships"; the various minor sports into "miscellaneous sports"). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I tried to use the GA statistics tool located on the GA Review Circles page, but got an error message. Clicking on the tool popped-up URL https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/g_editor_query/?editor_name=Noleander in my web browser, but the display was "Internal Server Error" (and no statistics). It could be a configuration issue with my computer or browser, I suppose. I don't need to run the tool, but I thought the GA gurus would want to know. Noleander (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling at the moment but will take a look when I get home. It probably just needs to be restarted; I think I recall this happening before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restarted it and as far as I can tell it's now working correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tamparuli/GA1 was created by the nominator. I noted this on their talkpage, and suggested either deletion or renomination, but they have not edited since nominating. Two editors have now left separate comments on things that need looking into, so I am now less convinced renomination makes sense. Does it make sense to fail it, so the nominator can fix those problems before renominating when they return? CMD (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who creates the GA page is the one who will get credited as the reviewer, so it would be better to delete it if possible. Perhaps move the comments to the article talk page? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just move it and transclude it to the talk page from the new location. The GA bot won't know the difference between that and a deletion, but we'll get to keep the page history and comments that way. -- asilvering (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meaningfully different from incrementation? I am wary of creating custom page titles, they seem likely to get lost. CMD (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is different as far as the bot is concerned, if that matters. The first instance of the page gets recorded in the bot's history database; when a second version of that page shows up, it will mark the first as superseded, eliminating it from statistics. Incrementing leaves the statistics from the first instance of the page in place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just subst the newly-created page and then histmerge it to the talk page? That preserves the history and gets rid of the custom subpage. It's not like it's an aggressively active talk page, so it won't mess anything up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good solution to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This question is prompted by an issue that arose earlier today, but my question is more general than just that one article, so I won't name it. This was a case of what appeared to be a defective WP:GAN review, i.e. an article was listed as GA when it should not have. I've been involved in a few of those, and it's never clear how to best address the problem. In the past, I've seen some bad reviews simply deleted (under WP:G6 IIRC?). The current feeling seems to be to bring these to WP:GAR, but that process seems a poor fit. Some clearer guidance would be useful. RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only reviews that are never really started are G6ed, it has not previously applied to reviews with more effort, whatever their final quality. A common process for a defective review, if it is recent (I don't think we've discussed hard rules on what is recent, but we've managed so far) is to revert the passing of the article and renominate it for a new review. CMD (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]