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.

There are currently 86 GARs active. The change to keeping them open minimum 1 month certainly hasn't helped, but the biggest problem is the number of nominations coming in far exceeds our ability to process them. Many have zero community participation beyond the initial nomination. If you're reading this, please consider taking a few minutes to participate at GAR to help form consensus, or close nominations that have run their course. I'm going to try and be more active at GAR and help with the backlog, but 86 GARs is far beyond my ability to handle. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually closed I think 7 over the last few days, with all but one as delists. My understanding though is that with the current wording of the GAR instructions, that GARs shouldn't be closed in less than a month unless there's a clear consensus to delist. So unless I'm outside of the standard interpretation of things, the majority of these couldn't really be closed, even if a consensus to delist forms. Although there are some that could be closed with a consensus - Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of the Plains of Abraham/1 looks pretty close for one. Hog Farm _Talk 23:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we see another reason this was a problematic change - what if consensus to keep develops in less than a month? Are we just supposed to sit there and wait even though the outcome is clear? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a review of History of philosophical pessimism, which was a quick-fail, only then to realize that the nominating editor has retired from Wikipedia. Should some action be taken on their other nomination, Philosophical pessimism?

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can always ask at the associated WikiProject if anyone wants to pick up the nom. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the first GA nomination of Philosophical pessimism, which also was a quickfail. Although various improvements have been made since then, I think it's unlikely that it would pass without any improvements. Reviewing an article of this scope is time-intensive and it would be a waste of time without a nominator to respond to the review. I'm not sure if there is an official way to deal with this type of situation, but I think it may be best to just remove the nomination without a review. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have done so, which I remember also doing in the past for similar situations. If a nominee unretires, I have no objection to their renomination of the article. CMD (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like someone else to take over this review, please, or to close it so the article can be renominated. I've given my reasons on the review discussion page. Thanks. Spartathenian (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartathenian: It basically means judging with the benefit of hindsight, but it's a mildly cretinous turn of phrase. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which is what all historians are obliged to do, ha! Thanks. Spartathenian (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but without sounding as if they come from, uh, Utica. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. To preface this, I currently have multiple GANs awaiting review, but I'll be going on vacation with little to no internet access for several weeks. Would it be acceptable if I were to temporarily pause the nominations by commenting out the {{GA nominee}} templates on each of the GANs' respective talk pages, then unhide them (restoring them to their previous position in the queue) when I return from vacation? I understand if that's not allowed, in which case I'll leave a note on each of the nomination templates. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just leave a note on the nominations page. Then anybody can still pick up the review, and they would just know to expect you not to respond for a few days. At the same time, I don't see a problem with commenting out the nom, it just seems like an excessive step to take. SSSB (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think since it's going to be a few weeks, not just days, it might be simpler to comment the noms out for the duration of the vacation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your replies. In that case, I think I'll comment out these nominations, then unhide them when I get back. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski, @Iazyges, @Chipmunkdavis, @Trainsandotherthings I'm pinging y'all to make you aware of an unusual GAR that's been opened that I think needs your eyes sooner than later per the note at WP:GAR that If discussion becomes contentious, participants may request the assistance of GAR coordinators at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The coordinators may attempt to steer the discussion towards resolution or make a decisive close..

Transgender health care misinformation was my second GA (first being Transgender history in Brazil). Its first GA assessment (Dec 16, 2024) was by @Dan Leonard who found it mostly passed, but failed due to copyvios.[1] Those were addressed, which was acknowledged by Dan Leonard, who left the subsequent review for another editor.[2] @IntentionallyDense offered to do a GA assessment after finishing others on their plate and offered some suggestions for improvement I incorporated.[3] Finally, it was reviewed by @LoomCreek, who passed it (January 12, 2025).[4]

It's had 138 different editors, the vast majority of whom consider it to be a NPOV compliant article. Examples of those who've claimed it hasn't on talk include this discussion[5], where an editor claimed the whole article was unbalanced, consensus was very clearly against him, and he was in fact shortly after SNOW CBANNED for vehement transphobia/homophobia[6]

I nominated it for DYK.[7] An editor claimed it failed NPOV (and left multiple personal attacks such as calling me an "activist single-purpose account" and etc - which 4 editors, including myself, warned him was against his GENSEX warning for inflammatory language)[8][9] I asked him at DYK to provide RS, which he did not, and raise any NPOV issues at talk, which he did not. I mistakenly thought that was that.

@Launchballer put the DYK on hold and took it to WP:GAR with the comment Claims of massive WP:NPOV violations were made at Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender health care misinformation. Courtesy pings to @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Starship.paint, WhatamIdoing, Colin, and Void if removed[10] which I think 1) was problematic in failing to identify the issues and 2) fails GAR's request to Consider raising issues at the talk page of the article or requesting assistance from major contributors. I'll also note that Void if Removed did not participate in the DYK discussion - he did participate on the talk page for the article previously, where consensus was that his concerns were unwarranted. He is now using the GAR to relitigate things discussed to death on talk (in some cases, on multiple separate pages)

There are also several related discussions at the WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard at the moment (and I'll note that 2 of those claiming the article has NPOV issues are those procedurally opposing an [RFC on the pathologization of trans identities] there where consensus has overwhelmingly been that the claim trans identities often stem from mental illness is FRINGE.

I'd appreciate your eyes on this, thoughts on whether GAR was/is the appropriate venue for these concerns (as opposed to a discussion on talk or NPOVN for example), and, if necessary, attempts to make the discussion more streamlined as it's currently a mess. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I very much dont see the credibility of such NPOV claims. Its well accepted by highly respected medical orgs that trans affirming care has an astounding success rates, with 99% satisfaction rate for gender affirming surgery. And detransition is highly unusual and rare, according to many credible studies. Most commonly due to social pressures, not due to a changing of identities. Treating this challenge as anything but a fringe and bigotry based challenge i think would be frankly ridiculous. And I wont entertain such false equivalency/credibility when there is no such basis. - LoomCreek (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with this article, but I want to establish now that I am unwilling to wade into arguments about it. I have enough stress IRL as it is. What I am going to say is that immediately going to GAR without any attempt to clearly establish what aspects of the GA criteria the article allegedly fails to meet is bad practice and I'm disappointed in how this was done. Look at most nominations and you see a clear reference to something that is identifiable and actionable. That the nominator has zero interest in participating in the GAR discussion is actively upsetting to me - we'd rightly condemn similar behavior at DYK, GAN, FAC, or any other process involving peer review. If you nominate something at GAR, you owe it to the community to participate when others weigh in. You don't get to just show up, say "people have concerns" and then peace out. If the discussion hadn't already taken off like this, I'd have half a mind to procedurally close the nomination as being invalid.

Speaking strictly from a personal perspective, I've ceased participating at DYK for the most part after a reviewer felt it was appropriate to nominate the article I had brought to DYK, the subject of multiple entire books, for deletion because they thought it "wasn't long enough". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK and GAR are not really places designed to handle this sort of dispute, which lies right at the core of a WP:Contentious topic. Such concerns can be raised at a GAR, but if the dispute is this intractable it needs to move to more formal and established WP:Dispute resolution procedures. It should be noted that the GA status, or lack of, is not an indication of community approval regarding the NPOV of any particular article. GAN remains an individual assessment, and WP:CCC in many directions. CMD (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to look into this fully, but we shouldnt action GARs based on a content dispute, which, whilst not exactly that, is at least adjacent to a content dispute. We should really keep discussions in one location. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few days, I have seen two seperate GA reassessments opened without any prior warning. I was wondering if it would be reasonable to change the wording in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment to ask that those who plan on reassessing articles please give a warning and some time for the participants to respond.

I know that reassessments are difficult and often met with hostility, but it almost seems like a waste of time to nominate something for reassessment when the issues could have been fixed in a day had someone raised the issue on the talk page.

Curious about others ideas and thoughts here. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 06:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have started leaving messages on talk pages, hoping that someone will improve the article before a GAR. The downside to this is it will extend the process to delist an article by another week: when an evaluation of an article is met with hostility, it can be mentally and emotionally draining to explain that an article needs to be cited, updated, and have text moved or removed to be concise. Extending that process by a week, meaning that an article is in the GAR process for at least 37 days (since right now an article needs to be at GAR for at least a month) might cause the already-limited number of GAR nominators to decrease even more. Z1720 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do understand this, and I know that those who tend to do regular reassements usually do leave a message first, it's just those that are new to it can be a bit hasty with it. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have so much experience with GAN, but I wasn't sure what the protocol is. There are a few articles which should really be brought to GA status (like major politicians) but the top contributors are either banned, inactive, or not interested in nominating. What happens then? Are those articles doomed from ever becoming good articles? Yeshivish613 (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles, especially ones on major/current subjects, will not meet the GA criteria without at least some revisions, so anyone wishing to nominate will likely wind up as a top contributor in the process of getting the article to GA quality. However, if you're really confident that an article already meets the GA criteria and you're not a major contributor, you can make a post on the talk page explaining what you're doing and why you're familiar enough with the sourcing to address any concerns at the GA review. This should prevent anyone from removing the nom as a drive-by. But be warned, nominations like this are risky - most articles do not meet the GA criteria without some work and you're liable to get quickfailed if you nominate articles that are far from ready. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As alluded to by Premeditated Chaos above, the purpose of requring nominators to be significant contributors to the nominated article is to ensure that nominators are sufficiently familiar with the article and its sources to be able to deal with any issues brought up by the reviewer. If somebody else has that familiarity, they should be able to nominate the article without any problems. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently three reviews open by Queen of Hearts that need to be addressed.

• Talk:Soumen Mitra/GA1 from Sohom_Datta – Opened on July 16, pinged on August 14, November 17, December 25, January 14, and February 24 (offwiki), then set to 2nd review by BlueMoonset on February 25.
• Talk:1994 Kiribati presidential election/GA1 from myself – Opened on January 7, pinged on January 26, February 20 (offwiki), February 23, and February 25 (offwiki).
• Talk:WTLV/GA1 from Sammi Brie – Opened on January 9, pinged on January 29, February 25 (offwiki), and February 27.

I was just wondering if we could get some input on these. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take over the Kiribati article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is disappointing. I'll take over WLTV. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]