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 centralise 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

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 .

Oldest vs. Highest priority[edit]

Is there any longer a distinction between these two (now that nominations are simply sorted by date), except that the "Highest priority" box seems to have fewer entries? If not, should we merge the two boxes together? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are slightly different (the fifth entry currently showing for me is Blackpink for the oldest unreviewed noms, and William L. Keleher for the most urgent). Whether they are sufficiently different for it to be valuable to have two separate lists is another matter: currently four of the five entries are the same. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance[edit]

I have made a few new climbing articles, but more importantly, have overhauled and expanded many key 'climbing topic' articles such as aid climbing, big wall climbing, ice climbing, alpine climbing, grade (climbing), climbing route, and also climbing BLPs like Barbara Zangerl.

My question is whether my standard of editing is anyway near GA-level, and if it is worth bringing any of these articles to GA level? Any advice would be appreciated, and no problem if the feedback is that I am far off. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without doing an actual review, it's difficult to say whether the prose is great, but it's certainly laid out in a good way and everything is cited. I'd suggest picking your best one and nominating it. The first review should give you a good indication of what the reviews are like. For what I see, they look like they'd be pretty likely to pass after fixing issues from a reviewer.

Even if there was a major issue, you'd also know more about what the standards are. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick feedback. I will take your advice and give it a try with one test article. Appreciated. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aszx5000: - I had a quick look at Aid climbing. It seems well-structured, nicely written, fully cited, and well illustrated. You shouldn't have a lot of problems at GAN with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Chiswick Chap. I am also pretty active on WikiCommons and do try and hunt for images that help explain things in the articles (either historically, technically, or as examples of leading routes). Delighted that it made an impression as well. thanks again, Aszx5000 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that as I have cleaned up the climbing topic articles that IPs have returned to take an interest in them. I would love to see if I could take a lot of the key articles in climbing to GA-level. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving sections (sport)[edit]

Hi guys - I know I've asked this previously, but the cue sports section (within other sports) now has 200 entries. Cricket has a section of its own, and has 51 less GA articles. Do you think we could swap them around? I get that cue sports aren't quite as populated as some of our other topics, such as football or motorsport (I'm working on it though!), but it is significantly larger than one we already have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if I recall you asked back in the Vector 2010 era, we are in the bold new Vector 2022 world where the lists are vertically compressed. I would support creating a lv3 Cue sports heading in recognition of the substantial work done in that topic, and the usability of the lists. Please don't do it boldly though, lv3 might have technical ramifications. However, I see no reason it can't be split into multiple lv5s now, that can all be moved together later if there is consensus to split. I would appreciate a split by sport, I saw at a glance some pool and some snooker, there might be others, but it's not easy to tell from some event titles, and obviously impossible to just tell from the biographies. As for downgrading Cricket, interesting question and we are about to lose another GA there, but doesn't need to happen to split off Cue sports. CMD (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I wouldn't make the change myself. There are a few issues with doing changes by specific sport, as there's quite a bit of overlap. Almost all snooker players have played pool or billiards (and vise versa). The other issue is that we have "snooker" but then also a mismatch of all other cue sports. We'd have to have an "other cue sports" topic, which I'm not a fan of as it suggests it's lesser than snooker.

I do think there is a suitable bio Vs non-bio split which would be suitable if there was a level 3 header for it. (~60 bios, with the remainder split between tournaments , governance and articles about the different games). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind a bio split, mostly coming from the angle of being a bit more informative to those less familiar with the various sports in question. CMD (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN page[edit]

Squirtle and Pikachu GAN review page should probably be deleted, its a little odd for only 15 edits user to review an comprehensive article like Pikachu. 2001:4455:36D:9100:4525:7C00:7FBC:AB4B (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are different users, and the Squirtle GA has already been closed. CMD (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ discussion space[edit]

Is there a page where people looking for a QPQ (GA review for a GA review) can seek out one another, if not, should it be created or would that be discouraged? GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the recent proposal drives (check the talk page archives), QPQ proposals did not come close to passing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those proposals were for mandated QPQ. It sounds like GMH is looking for a space to discuss voluntary QPQ. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See proposal #4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't, and suggestions to create an "official" page of this type were discussed and did not find widespread support, and many people are skeptical that it is a good idea at all. —Kusma (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be really nice to have a page for voluntary, informal QPQ. Skyshiftertalk 13:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons the GA process had a bad reputation a decade ago was the practice of mutual positive reviews with minimal scrutiny. So any structure for QPQ should have something in place to prevent low quality reviews and quick passes. —Kusma (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]