Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsJuly Backlog DriveMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport
Good article nominations
Good article nominations
Shortcut

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.

Concerns about a review: Taj Mahal[edit]

Hi! I want to bring to notice that the review done for Taj Mahal seems to be done by a reviewer in a haste with the review not done as per all the GA criteria.

Background: The article was a GA for many years (2006-2021) and it was de-listed. The article has gone through multiple reviews (eight GA/FA/peer reviews/reassessments to be precise), with three previous assessments retaining it as a GA. The concerns raised in the previous review where it was de-listed (gallery, citation tags, expansion of certain sections), have been fairly addressed. The article is fairly expansive, was a GA and has gone through improvements to address the issues.

In the current review, the reviewer seems to have taken up a few random citations and has found contentious reasons (e.g. "It is not available in Google Books", "it is rather vague", "Author's meaning is different") for discrediting them, quickly failing the GA on the same. Ironically, some of these sources discredited are reliable, verifiable, and have been there for years through all these reviews.

As an editor, I would have been happy to provide clarifications if this was discussed and would work on improving the article if constructive comments have been provided. As comments provided previously have been addressed adequately, the current review adds little value as to what needs to be done. Would request clarity on the below points:

Book citations have been rejected simply because it is not accessible on Google Books or it requires paid access. As per WP:CITEHOW and WP:RS, onus is on providing the required details and not that the book should be available for free or in Google books, I presume. This is of concern as majority sources quoted here are journal sources with paid access and books. There has been no concern raised on this over the years through multiple assessments as well. I request for clarity on verifiability of books not accessible through Google Books and paid journals with respect to the GA.

While there are quick criteria for the failure of GA, in my opinion, the review has not done justice to the article and certainly is not a case for quick failure. Would request further comments or second opinion on this as to how to proceed. Thanks!

Tagging co-nominators as well: The Herald and DreamRimmer.

Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As co nominator, I agree with MM. The review seemed to have been done hastily for a former GA and former FAC. Also, it would be better for an experienced GA reviewer to take up an article like Taj. It is definitely not in a quick fail criteria and can always be improved upon. Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a full reply on the review, but to me this is overstating the prominence of "inability to access sources" in the review, and it doesn't mention some fundamental issues with OR and failed verification. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien To me, your revert seem to be only justifying what has been done and does nothing to address any of the concerns. Please let me be clear here. The intention is to productively work on the comments/issues, so that it can be addressed and I do not want to simply waste our times in engaging in a fruitless dispute just for the sake of it with no real clarity at the end as to what to do. Whether it is a GA fail or a pass, a GA review should be fair enough to do justice to the editor(s), who put in effort and nominate the article. I will state in certain terms that this review at best throws some clarity requirements for a few statements and does not provide much to help in improving the article further.
Your comments also conveniently fail to sufficiently address any of the questions or clarifications raised here. So it would be helpful if these are addressed point by point. I am repeating this, as this was the whole pointing of raising this here as this would again help in getting clarity on these issues, so that they can be worked upon.
1. It has not addressed the basic question of why book/journal sources were simply considered not verifiable because somebody was not able to access it. Shouldn't a clarification be sought from the editor in the first place? Are book sources not available in Google Books prohibited as per WP:RS? Does the GA criteria say that if the source is not available in Google Books or requires a subscription, it has to be considered unverifiable and quick failed?
2. There was no comprehensive review on all the criteria. The page has gone through iterations and if it is quick failed with few suspect comments (which in my opinion is nowhere close to the criteria for quick fail), another reviewer might do the same for another paragraph and GA reviews will roll on forever. Unless there is a comprehensive review with comments and some kind of consistency, I do not see a point of having a GA framework.
3. In my opinion, for vague or rather unclear statements, an editor's response has to be sought. It might at best be a minor edit if there is a disagreement and the entire statement does not certainly become unverifiable because the interpretation of particular word(s) were different (your answer to one of these issues seem to be suggesting exact copyvio from the source).
As a last request, let me know from your experience as to what should be done as an editor here based on the comments, so that I will proceed accordingly with the page concerned.
Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Books and journals do not have to be accessible to the reviewer as you state (although the nominator should be familiar with them).
2. There does not have to be a comprehensive review of all criteria if there are sufficient issues identified for any one part. It is not expected that as part of the process significant issues will be found and given time to be addressed, articles should be as ready as possible before nomination.
3. I am not sure what this is asking, but disagreements can be handled by discussion.
What should be done as an editor is to edit the article in question and ensure the sources back up the information they are citing. From the examples provided, there are improvements that can be made in this regard. CMD (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if you think there are no improvements that can be made, you can simply renominate the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as reviewer I've provided answers to the points raised by Magentic Manifestations at Talk:Taj Mahal/GA1#Response to Magentic Manifestations. I stand by my decision to quick-fail the article because the sample of six spot-checks clearly indicate the failure of citations to directly support material, as required by WP:V. I therefore consider the article to be, per WP:GAFAIL, a long way from meeting the requirements of criteria#2, which includes WP:V. The spot-checks have also revealed breaches of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Happy to discuss further. PearlyGigs (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CMD, Thanks for giving clarity on the points. I do agree that there are clarifications needed + improvements that can be made and I am happy to do it. My whole point was that this could have been resolved through a simple discussion if the reviewer was willing to do it in the first place and it certainly did not satisfy the criteria for a quick fail (hence my request for a comprehensive review!).

@AirshipJungleman29, I will sort these out and re-nominate it for a proper review.

The user PearlyGigs is engaging in unnecessary and irrelevant discussions/mudslinging on the GA page, bringing out my past reviews/edits. This does not reek of someone who wants to engage on a constructive conversation.

@PearlyGigs A discussion is what you ought to have done before. Request you to stop engaging in discussion not related to the subject at hand and not to go on a WP:Witch hunt, which is against the basic rule of civility. Keep the discussion to the relevant subject at hand. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magentic Manifestations, I had walked away from this to concentrate on Leon Leuty (GAN backlog) and Charles the Bold (GOCE backlog). How you are handling a current GA review is entirely relevant to your criticisms of myself and Thebiguglyalien in respect of WP:GAFAIL and the way to use verification spot-checks, because it underlines your evident misunderstanding of the approved process.
As for "mudslinging", I think accusing me of feigning ignorance and suggesting that Thebiguglyalien endorses COPYVIO would qualify for that. Your being the victim of a witch hunt is rather an exaggeration considering that I have merely explained, albeit at length, my rationale for the GAFAIL, which includes noting that your objections indicate a failure to understand and comply with WP:GAN/I#R3. Your approach to the Ken Anderson review seems to confirm this and I think it is a learning point for you. I am not interested in any of your "past reviews/edits". Ken Anderson is a current review, now on hold, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to pass it without getting confirmation that an offline source in your spot-check sample directly supports its material?
Perhaps, as you are obviously so offended by the failure of the Taj Mahal review and so certain that I am entirely in the wrong, you should take your issues to WP:ANI? I will be happy to discuss the matter there if you are not prepared to WP:JUSTDROPIT. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PearlyGigs How I handle my GA reviews is irrelevant to the GA review of the page discussed here. If there is an issue with such specific review, the respective nominator can address that and you are neither his/her voice nor the ultimate judge of things here. FYI, I have not failed the article for GA with dubious reasons for the sake of not spending enough time.
As for you cannot provide relevant reasons for the questions raised, you seem to be hell bent on dragging things irrelevant to the GA process at hand and proving that I am right. You seem to be offended as the issue was brought here and have added a larger retort bringing in a whole plethora of unnecessary jargon. As clarified by CMD here, try and understand the how the citations work and engage in a proper discussion next time, which could solve most of the issues and save time for everyone. Also, as two users have pointed out in the review page, try and familiarize yourself with the GA process by taking shorter, less traffic articles next time.
I have as such mentioned that the discussion on that particular GA is going nowhere and has dropped it. So please stay within the ambit of what is discussed and stay out of other discussions in which I am involved unless you have a due cause/constructive contribution or this is definitely going to go to ANI. Ciao! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISENGAGE is one of the site's wiser policies. If anyone who reads this discussion should wish to ask me anything, or offer any useful advice, please go to my talk page. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is List of Smallville characters a GA?[edit]

Shouldn't it be a Featured list? I think it's still good shape-wise; I don't keep up with this show, so I don't know if it's up-to-date. Spinixster (trout me!) 10:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to have been named "Characters of Smallville" when it was originally a GAN, which was fine then, but it later got moved in a RM to the current title. It should likely be either removed as a GA (as an ineligible list) or assessed for FL status. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it has been renamed to a 'list of' format, it is absolutely not a list article. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, comparing it to a similar Featured List article, say, List of The Mandalorian characters or List of Millennium characters, it's quite similar. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic, but boy does that Mando list badly need a revamp. The minor characters section is almost entirely unsourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assist[edit]

I went and did a part of a GA assessment of Aoi Koga earlier today, can someone used to the GA process check if it is good? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaBetaGamma, you can list this on the backlog drive page as well, to increase the likelihood someone picks it up soon. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 nominations[edit]

We're now half way through the year 2024, but there are still over a dozen nominations from 2023 that never got reviewed. If you're not sure what to work on, consider reviewing one of these:

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction[edit]

The original review for 2022 City of Edinburgh Council election was messed up by a now blocked editor. The nomination was passed earlier today but, when updating this page, the bot hasn't recorded it as my 12th GA. Is there a way to correct that? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA numbers are usually updated overnight, but there have been a couple of discrepancies recently so I just ran the update manually. The database now shows it as a pass, so the next time the GAN page updates your numbers should be up to date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Godzilla Minus One/GA1[edit]

@Broc and Eiga-Kevin2: Hi, I was about to nominate this newly-promoted GA for WP:DYK and found an interesting factoid in the Critical response subsection, until I spotted close paraphrasing on a few texts in that section:

Article Source
Tokyo-based film critic and journalist Mark Schilling wrote that Japanese critics frequently rebuke the films of writer-director Takashi Yamazaki, partly because "most are left-leaning" and view a few of his films, most notably the war drama The Eternal Zero (2013), as "nationalistic if not outright jingoistic". Schilling also mentioned that critic and historian Inuhiko Yomota was critical of Godzilla Minus One, calling it "dangerous". Japanese critics, though, have long been hard on Yamazaki, one reason being that most are left-leaning and they see some of his films, especially his 2013 action drama “The Eternal Zero,” about WWII tokkōtai (kamikaze) pilots and based on a novel by rightist author Naoki Hyakuta, as nationalistic if not outright jingoistic.

Even “Godzilla Minus One,” in which a plucky band of civilians, including a disgraced former tokkōtai pilot, band together to save Japan from Godzilla, was called a “dangerous movie” by essayist and film historian Inuhiko Yomota in a Facebook post.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, American critics praised its drama, low-budgeted visual effects, and usage of kaiju as a metaphor for social commentary, with many favoring it over recent Hollywood productions. U.S. critics have unanimously praised the film for the remarkable visual mileage Yamazaki got out of the project’s relatively small budget, as well as the story’s moving human drama and canonical use of the kaiju as a metaphor for social critique. [...] Godzilla Minus One seems to be earning especially favorable comparisons to Hollywood’s recent output of franchise sequels —
According to Dana Stevens, Ryunosuke Kamiki's performance is memorable because of his ability to convey the protagonist's vulnerability and emotional distress. Kamiki’s anguished, vulnerable performance is one crucial part of what makes this protagonist so memorable,

Broc, were you able to examine thoroughly the prose for close paraphrasing issues? Because there could be more in this section and elsewhere. The examples above are just from English-language sources, I think the Japanese ones should be examined further. If it turned out that the article contains even more CLOP issues, then it may need to undergo a GA reassessment. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy thanks for pointing it out. I did run Earwig while doing the GA review and did not find major copyvio issues.
Regarding the close paraphrasing you pointed out here:
For the first sentence, I don't see the substantial similarity between the left and right column. The article uses direct quotes when needed and provides attribution to the author in-text.
The other two sentences also provide clear attribution, in-text ("according to...") and with an in-line reference. However, I agree that they look rather similar to the original and could use direct quotes instead.
Per WP:CLOP, Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism however, in all three cases you raised there is clear in-text attribution. If these are the only copyright issues, I don't see the need for GA reassessment. Broc (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Broc: Ah, okay. I thought the texts and those of the sources looked nearly identical in structure and flow; missed that one CLOP policy. And I assume you checked the Japanese sources as well? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy all I did was reading the policy, don't consider me a copyright expert. If you think the issue needs expert judgment, please raise it at WP:CP.
I did check a few Japanese sources as spot check; however, I don't speak Japanese myself, and the machine translation is often unreliable. Broc (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. I apologize for this inconvenience. I think that'll be all. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=1233534226"