Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Help needed at Talk:Dido and Aeneas.2FGA1

Currently, the Jan-May-Sept timing of the GAN backlog drives overlaps with the regularly-scheduled NPP backlog drives. One of the reasons for this timing was to coincide with WikiCup round scheduling. There's been some discussion at WT:NPP#Schedule offset about this, and {{u|Hey man im josh}} suggested, {{tq|For the WikiCup, I actually think it would be more interesting, and possibly more helpful for the WikiCup, if it were run in February, after people have already had the time to make some nominations for the cup. I think it could push for more reviewers and more nominations, as people involved in the cup make the effort in order to make it to the next round (if we revert back to the old format) or for tournament points (if we stick with the new one). February is the second month of round 1, June is the second month of round 3, and October is the second month of the final round. I genuinely think it would make the race to the next round more exciting, and the lower totals in January make more people maybe want to give it a shot instead of seeing "well I'll never catch up to all those people".}} Thoughts? -- asilvering (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would support this as someone who has coordinated some of the drives while also participating in the Wikicup. I found January extremely overwhelming, and in comparison, May seems to have attracted very few participants. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:We currently have the GOCE, NPP, and GAN drives happening at the same time. This cannot be healthy for any of these efforts. All three of these are quite general drives where anyone can find something of personal interest to help with, but how, and why, are we being forced to choose between them? I don't want to start setting my watch every year with "oh hey it's that time of year where I can't participate in the drives because they've all come around at exactly the same time and competing in any of them would require the abandonment of the others". I've never had any involvement with the WikiCup but don't like the idea of backlog drives being scheduled to assist any other competition; in that way we're removing the real purpose of the drive, backlogs, and turning it into a WikiCup minigame. Again, my involvement with the cup is nil, so any corrections on that view are welcome. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::A huge volume of GA reviews are done by WikiCup participants; they're not unrelated in the way that NPP and GOCE drives are. But it sounds to me like in any case you're in support of shifting the GAN backlog schedule to Feb-June-Oct? -- asilvering (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Definitely supportive of a move to split these drives up - I probably should have started with that! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Note that GOCE continuously alternates between drives (odds months) and blitzes (even months), such that the triannual GAN drive will always coincide with GOCE drives or always with GOCE blitzes. The current Jan-May-Sept GAN cadence results in the former, while a Feb-June-Oct schedule would involve the latter. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@ViridianPenguin, it's probably better to coincide with the blitzes, right? -- asilvering (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Because folks have to work at twice the pace to earn the same awards in GOCE blitzes, as compared to GOCE drives, there's a counter-argument that GAN drive participants will either ignore the GOCE blitz or expend all their energy on it instead of the GAN drive. Regardless of which GAN drive schedule we choose, we can recruit knowing that GOCE members can return to that project's events the following month. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:If there are a lot of people who participate in several of these drives, then go for it. I sometimes participate in the GAN backlog drives and do not care very strongly when they are. I do not find it easy to predict the effects on the WikiCup. —Kusma (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is not related to the WikiCup but I would support a June drive because May is the busiest month of the year for a student and even though I have a great desire to participate in a GAN backlog drive, I know that I must prioritize academics before Wikipedia in May. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's a good point. Taking edits as a proxy for free time, April and May were the least free times of 2024, although at a quick glance the pattern is not as strong in other years. CMD (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:What in the heck happened in Jan-Feb, I wonder. Wild outliers. What's the 2023 data look like? -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::Lots of talk page posts apparently? [https://en.wikiscan.org/?menu=tables&submenu=edit&type=total&date=2023 No such outliers in 2023], ranges from 4,607,871 (September) to 5,758,607 (January). CMD (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::My conclusion from paging through that data is that, from the perspective of overall activity, it doesn't really matter what month we hold drives in, since it's reasonably consistent across all months and doesn't have a super obvious regular pattern of heavier and lighter months. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This has come up a lot lately in reviews and discussions, so I think the GA community would benefit from a clear answer in a section only dedicated to this question:

• WP:GACR6 2b states: "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)." Does this mean that GAs should, at minimum, have a citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies the information that proceeds it, except for sections that do not require citations (like plot summaries and lead sections)?

It might be helpful to proceed comments with a bolded "Yes", "No", or "Maybe/Comment/Depends", or respond however. Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:No bold from me, but if we settle on "Yes", then we should drop the "that could reasonably be challenged". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes – It has always been this way for me in practice, and it seems like the reasonable interpretation of the wording. IAWW (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:We can't divide articles into "sections where citations are required" and "sections where they aren't"; that would be absurd. We require inline citations for material that requires inline citations, and we don't want those citations to be later than the end of a paragraph. In many cases, that will mean that there are citations/footnotes at the end of a paragraph, but not always. So obviously the answer is "it depends". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

: Another exception is MOS:BLOCKQUOTE: {{tq|It is conventional to precede a block quotation with an introductory sentence (or sentence fragment) and append the source citation to that line.}} Personally, I do not like it, but it is allowed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, I've never understood it any other way. All claims need to be supported by a citation except for "implicit primary source citations" (like plot summaries) and for summarizations of cited content (like leads). "No later than the end of the paragraph" seems to be throwing people off; all it means is that you should follow WP:REPCITE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:No. Criterion 2b requires that every claim likely to be challenged is backed by a reliable, inline citation somewhere before the paragraph (or line) ends—not that every paragraph must mechanically finish with a footnote. Esculenta (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Esculenta}} Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, are you thinking of any specific cases where the end of a paragraph doesn't need a citation (besides the plot and lead examples that Z1720 included)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Thebiguglyalien – Two everyday scenarios where a paragraph needn't finish with a fresh footnote:

::: :* Single-source coverage. If the first sentence cites Jones 2019, pp. 42–45 and the remainder of the paragraph is nothing more than a summary of those same pages, adding a second, duplicate citation at the end serves no verification purpose. Anyone checking the text already knows exactly which source (and page range) to consult.

::: :* In-paragraph granularity. Sometimes each specific claim in a paragraph already carries its own inline citation (e.g. a list of ship specifications where every displacement figure, speed figure, and launch date is individually sourced). Placing an extra, catch-all ref after the final full stop would just repeat information that's already right beside the relevant statements.

::::Outside the lead and plot sections, every challengeable statement still needs to be verifiable, but criterion 2b doesn't prescribe where the ref goes so long as it appears before the paragraph ends and is clearly linked to the material it supports. Requiring a reflex "citation-at-paragraph-end" would create redundant clutter without improving verifiability. It reads as a request for licence to dispense with nuance. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*{{re|Esculenta}} In both cases, I would suggest moving the citation to the end of the last sentence that the citation is verifying, as the citation would be assumed to verify all the information before it. Putting it in the middle of a paragraph could mean that it is verifying all the information in that paragraph, or it could mean that, after the information was added to the article, another editor added uncited information after the ref. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*:You could suggest that, but then I could reply that WP:GACR6 2b states that "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph" and that my interpretation of the rules is reasonable. So there we go in circles, likes previous conversations on this page. I agree in practice citations overwhelmingly occur at the end of paragraphs, but apparently, reasonable people can disagree on the specific interpretation of the guideline. Esculenta (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*::Hopefully the outcome of this thread will clarify which interpretation of this rule is the consensus of GA. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*:::Even if you think you've come up with a consensus in your favour, you can't deny what the guideline actually says. Instead of all of this time-wasting back-and-forth, wouldn't it be easier to change the guideline itself to explicitly demand that all text blocks MUST end in a citation? Esculenta (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*::::I feel like that's what they're trying to get consensus for. Reinterpreting (or changing) the rule to fit the consensus. Nub098765 (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*{{edit conflict}} I don't know if the former is disallowed, but it would be bad form to put the source in front of only some of what it supports instead of at the end; that would really mess up WP:TSI. The latter might apply in specific circumstances, but I don't know if I've ever seen it in a GA; whenever I've encountered a sentence like this, I put the last citation at the end of the sentence. Even if we don't outright ban these, I'd strongly discourage both of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*{{ec}} Disagree with the above. Firstly regarding "single-source coverage", it is silly to refuse to place a citation where it is required in the expectation that the reader will just know that the previous citation is still relevant. Why? We use citations to indicate where information has come from. We don't leave a trail of bread crumbs, hoping the reader will figure it out now that we've purposefully removed the helpful markers. Secondly, I think you've misunderstood this to say that this is an attempt to obtain "catch-all" citations. I don't think I've ever seen someone try and shoehorn such in. Every paragraph should end in a citation because every paragraph is made up of information you have obtained from sources that need to be indicated. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*:{{ping|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}} The wording says that "content that could reasonably be challenged" requires a source. That wording would be redundant if all content required a source. However, it is not redundant: we have content that has been deemed not to be reasonably challenged, such as under WP:CALC. Are you suggesting that when a paragraph ends with WP:CALC-based content that we should somehow shoehorn a source into it? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*::WP:CALC only applies to elementary arithmetic and unit conversions of sourced information. So for example if a source says that there were two apples and three oranges, we can say in wikivoice that there were five pieces of fruit. You still need a source giving you the original numbers. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*:::Not just elementary arithmetic. WP:CALC: {{tq|Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences.}} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*::::It still requires {{tq|a meaningful reflection of the sources}}. Compare the fruit with more complex math if necessary, but you need a source for the input. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::*:::::You need a source for something but it doesn't have to be the input. In Matrix (mathematics)#Size, the example at the end of the paragraph is a meaningful reflection of the sourced notation. The calculation itself is trivial (counting to three) and swapping the data in the example with different data copied from a source would add no value. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, if there is no citation at the end of a paragraph of the main text then the content preceding this lack is uncited. The criteria already provides the exceptions, being essentially ledes and plots. This should be adhered to. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Pickersgill-Cunliffe Maybe a stupid question, but what would you do with illustrations or examples? For example, Chinese characters (a featured article) lacks a footnote at the end of the paragraph where it introduces how to draw the character 永. Would this count as an exception to the rule laid out above? Similarly, in the section for printings and typefaces, the author made the editorial choice to put the citation above the list, as allowed by the MOS. Would that count as uncited to you? Similarly, there is an uncited table illustrating several examples of Hanja, and the hangul and translations accompanying them (two things that don't need a citation, given that we don't need citations for Wikipedian-provided translations unless controversial). Is this problematic to you? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|GreenLipstickLesbian}} Answering your first question, I would consider that akin to the BLOCKQUOTE example provided above by Hawkeye. I agree it's an interesting and rather unique example though. I also don't see an issue with the list you bring up; it's encapsulated in the same way. I do note that my comment focuses on paragraphs of text! Personally I would say that yes, the table is uncited. That's a personal preference I suppose, but in my opinion nothing should be left to the abilities of Wikipedians. We are writing the encyclopaedia, not providing the information and expertise for it and the sources behind it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hey, if I'm good for anything it's finding the weird examples! Because, while agreeing that the first two aren't problematic, I would argue that ... I know it's not fully accurate, but I'm going to call it this, transcluding a usergenerated source (image on Commons) isn't quite the same as MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, but I see why somebody would say it's similar enough. As for the list not being paragraphs... it's a list made out of paragraphs of text? So, for the proposed re-wording, how would you actually define a paragraph? And as for the final thing - I think I'll have to disagree outright. Much information about very valuable topics simply hasn't been translated into English. Either we limit ourselves severely, or we have to accept, on good faith, that basic translations are okay. Without it, we lose so much information. For example, I've had to manually translate things such a non-Latin titles of creative works. If I didn't do that, I'd have had to transliterate them, which is also a process with room for error. Either way, it was either that or simply... not have the information? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd have loved to been able to consult a published source - titles are short enough that it wouldn't infringe on the external source's copyright, but if you'll pardon a small tangent, larger translations actually have to be provided by Wikipedians in many cases, as modern translations are in copyright and our NFCC go against using non-free material when a free alternative can be generated - but I couldn't. In this situation, what would you do? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, @Thebiguglyalien, I'm interested in your opinions on the above listed examples; each has resulted in (by my argument) a paragraph that does not end in a citation. Are these issues to you? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'd consider these to be the equivalent of image captions, in that they describe visuals on the page rather than making a claim in their own right. For the purposes of 2b, I'd consider the previous sentence to be the "end" of the paragraph as far as sourcing is concerned. But you're right that with this formatting, the end of the paragraph is technically unsourced. Regarding the table itself, I'd allow that it might fall under the spirit of WP:TRANSCRIPTION if not the letter (it refers specifically to sources). Like Pickersgill, I'd still prefer if it was drawn from a source rather than an editor choosing and translating their own examples—see my writing at Profanity#Subjects where I only used examples if they were provided by the source. But this is also a minor case that I'd be willing to accept even at FAC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So the end of the paragraph.. is not always considered the end of the paragraph? We're going to need to officially define the end of the paragraph in that case, given that I think on Wikipedia, there is a very high portion of people (self included) who have brains who read guidelines in a very literal manner - I think some of that is what leads to friction in processes like these. If it helps, while I do think examples should be drawn from sources when possible, there can be an immense amount of creativity when it comes to compiling examples. If you only use examples from one source, and the example is on the longer side, it's a Wikipedia copyright issue. And yes, some publishers will get fussy about things such as a creative table being reproduced. That's an issue for, less so for us, our content re-users, certainly. But what I'm hearing is that yes, you think it goes against the rules, but you think it's acceptable for an IAR sort of reason? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• No. There are multiple good reasons for not changing no later than the end of the paragraph to at the end of the paragraph. There are two such cases that have occurred in my editing: (1) Paragraphs where the claims needing sources are sourced at some earlier point in the paragraph, and where the paragraph ends with a simple example that does not require a source per WP:CALC, is not copied from any source, and should not be copied from a source (because copying literal examples without good reason is the same sort of improper copying as copying the text wording of sources without good reason). Example: Matrix (mathematics)#Size, first paragraph. (2) Paragraphs that end with a displayed mathematical formula, such as the first two lines of Matrix (mathematics)#Addition. The convention that has been followed for such material, across Wikipedia, has to put the footnote at the end of the text before the displayed formula, rather than on the line that ends the paragraph inside the formula. There are at least two good reasons for this convention, one being that bracketed numbers in formulas could easily be misinterpreted as part of the formula, and another being that Wikimedia's standard formatting for displayed formulas using <math display=block> does not make it possible to put a footnote marker there. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :To clarify my memory, I went back and reviewed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 29#RfC: change GA criteria to require inline citations in all cases in 2023 when we adopted this text as part of the main GA rules instead of the supplementary guidelines. The closure statement went out of its way to quote one of the discussion comments "I see no language in the proposal that forbids putting the citation before the content as in your example". The examples used in that discussion were Featured Article Providence and Worcester Railroad#System which then and now has footnotes prior to rather than after a bulleted list, without footnotes on the items in the list itself, and (non-GA/FA) Universal Declaration of Human Rights#Adoption which has the same structure of sourced text following a bulleted list that does not repeat the footnotes on each item.
• :Whether one counts a bullet in a bulleted list as a separate paragraph or the whole list as part of the preceding paragraph is not obvious to me. I think though that these examples clearly meet the current standard that all content is sourced prior to the end of their paragraph (long before, if each bullet is a paragraph, but nevertheless it is clear enough which source is intended to apply) and would not meet the standard under discussion of requiring a footnote at the end of the paragraph (repeated many times if a bullet is a paragraph). I have no opinion whether that means this RFC is asking for a stricter standard than FA or whether the FA example should not be FA. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::@David Eppstein Would you support if these specific examples (bullet points and some math situations) were excluded? IAWW (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::*I'm not DE, but I think math equations/situations should be excluded because (from my understanding) they are self-proving as correct (that is, the solution of the equation verifies that the math does what it says it does). Lists with bullet points would also be excepted, but that is also not written in paragraphs so I didn't think to specify it in this question: the citation for a list can be before the list or after the last entry, from my interpretation of wiki-policy and guidelines. If the list is formatted by a paragraph, my interpretation of GA? 2b is that the citation would be placed at the end of the last entry (if the citation verifies all list entries) or after the entry that it is verifying. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Simple calculations under WP:CALC (not mathematical calculations requiring full proofs, which should be cited), formulas, and bulleted lists are the exceptions I know about offhand. If this is to pass they definitely should be exceptions.

::::That said, the current wording that the sourcing for material that needs sourcing should happen before the end already covers those situations.

::::The main effect of this rule, to me, is in freeing reviewers to review superficially, only checking the existence of a footnote marker at the end of each paragraph. The difference between that and the existing situation is the lack of thought into whether a missing footnote marker is actually problematic. We don't want to encourage lack of thought and superficiality in our GAN reviewers. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a basic and standard expectation for sourcing, across Wikipedia's content assessment. GA should not differ from it. CMD (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes except for explicit exemptions from the MOS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Almost, but there are some exceptions where it makes sense to put the citation slightly before the cited content. Typical exceptions are cast lists for films or displayed mathematics formulas. Perhaps we could clarify what the exceptions are? —Kusma (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm had a look through the guidelines and surprisingly can't find a list of typical exceptions anywhere. Both cast lists and mathematical formulas can fall under the same general exception—under which also fall the common exceptions of block quotes and tables—of not being part of article prose. There is some variance in how these can be best cited (lists and tables can be cited in various ways depending on whether and how they combine multiple sources, block quotes can be cited before the quote or after the author name), but those variations are needed because they are not textual prose. (And if we are being pedantic we should include images and their captions, which do not normally need citations at all.) CMD (talk) 07:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::*The intention of this question was to ask about citations in prose organised by paragraphs. I didn't intent to ask about charts (of which a citation anywhere in the chart is usually fine), images (because I don't consider captions as part of the prose), and math equations (because I see that they are usually organised like block quotes or images). Block quotes is an exception I didn't think of, and would probably be specified that the citation can be before or after the quote. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::*:The layout of equations as a separate block of text is separate from their meanings. In terms of meaning, they are usually part of a sentence within a paragraph, which can continue both before or after the equation. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::*:Equations are part of paragraphs [https://wp.optics.arizona.edu/kupinski/wp-content/uploads/sites/91/2023/05/MerminEquations.pdf]. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes as being completely within reason. Per above, if you don't have an end-of-paragraph citation by default, how the heck could you verify the last sentence of said paragraph? — ^EF⁵ 16:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• No, that is not the plain meaning of the criterion being cited. "No later than" means "no later than", not "at the end of". Just because "at the end of" is a convention that makes sense in most circumstances, that doesn't mean it has to be applied in every circumstance. Fussing so much over footnote placement seems like a distraction --- or, maybe, a way to have a mechanical rule to follow instead of actually checking to see if the writing and the referencing are good. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes It makes it easier for readers to find the source of information. Some elements may have different standards, such as block quotes, mathematical formulas, lists, and tables, but the current formulation is specifically about paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - Although the proposal is slightly different in meaning from the existing wording, the existing wording is hard to parse. The GA criteria should be very simple & plain. Also, I concur with User:Firefangledfeathers who wrote above "if we settle on "Yes", then we should drop the "that could reasonably be challenged"." Noleander (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Also agree with that addendum. CMD (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::It would not be the first rule requiring inanity in our footnotes. The rule on DYK that the sentence stating a DYK hook needs to be footnoted, even when the same footnote is right there on the next sentence of the same paragraph and covers all claims in both paragraphs, is another. I have defended that rule, telling DYK nominators "I know it looks stupid but it's the rule". But in that case the redundant footnote can be removed and sanity restored once the DYK has run. Requiring unnecessary footnotes on material that cannot reasonably be challenged seems to me to be a step towards making GA about arbitrary rule-following rather than having any justifiable connection to article quality. (The first example I found when looking through some recent GAs was an unfootnoted claim that {{sfrac|2}} + {{sfrac|3}} + {{sfrac|9}} = {{sfrac|17|18}}, and that {{sfrac|17|18}} is less than one: could this reasonably be challenged?) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Happily the rule would not require inanity in footnotes, or create redundancy. CMD (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Well, clearly we disagree. I think requiring a footnote on 1+1=2 would be inane. Famously, the xkcd blog characterized adding [citation needed] to "the night sky is dark" as vandalism [https://what-if.xkcd.com/109/ (see footnote 5) and inspired a generation of vandals to do just that. Not everything needs a citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Yes, you did open saying things would be inane. I'm not sure why you think that is going to entice others to consider your input. But to answer, this example as with the mathematical notation arguments above are taking things immediately to extremis and using that as a norm. If you can show me where 1+1=2 has caused disruption in a GAN I would appreciate it. Your reading of xkcd and cn tags misses that the footnote is clearly about their intent. This is an especially poor comparison to make when you previously started a whole discussion where you asked people to add tags. CMD (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It probably hasn't caused disruption yet, because the rule as written doesn't require a footnote on 1+1 = 2, or on . But the rule that people want to change to would either require a footnote or, at best, lead to pointless bickering over "WP:CALC" this and "could reasonably be challenged" that.
• ::::::I don't think that the question of how to handle mathematical equations is taking anything "to extremis". Formulas are all over math and science pages. The issue of how to provide references for them is obviously important. Just because articles with technical content are only a fraction of the whole encyclopedia, that doesn't make the issue less important in those cases where it does come up. This whole discussion is about the edge cases, really: the question is about whether a style guide that makes sense 99% of the time must be applied 100% of the time, on pain of losing the green sticker. Nobody is saying that mathematical formulae are the "norm", just that they fall in that percentage where the style guide doesn't make sense, proving by example that the percentage in question is non-zero.
• ::::::(The idea that the rule wouldn't cover them because it only applies "to paragraphs" doesn't make sense at all to me. Formulas are part of the paragraphs in which they are included. So are block quotes. And I don't see how putting a bullet point in front of a short paragraph radically changes the situation, either. Either there's a solid principle behind the rule, and so it should apply everywhere, or it's merely an idea that's good most of the time, so it should apply most of the time, but the green sticker award shouldn't hinge upon it.) 64.112.179.236 (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Actually, the discussion is not about edge cases, it is about the general criteria. I'm afraid if you think that pointless bickering is prevented by the current formulation then you are mistaken. The particular edge case being raised is a red herring, under the presumption that this change affects mathematical formulas, which it really doesn't, it would be really easy to figure out specifically how to deal with them. Anyone is welcome to propose a way to handle mathematical forumlas, just reply to Kusma above on the actual sub-discussion about edge cases. CMD (talk) 05:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::There are two different things here that you appear to be conflating: (1) the formatting of displayed formulas, (2) claims that do not need citations under WP:CRC (essay but one linked by our current rules) and that would require a citation under this rule because they happen to be placed at the end of a paragraph.
• ::::::::I have been presenting mathematical examples because those are the examples I am familiar with, but I have no reason to believe that issue (2) is limited to mathematics. I would much prefer simple general rules than carve-outs for special cases. I believe the current rule, that everything needing a source should have a source, at or before the end of the same paragraph, is a simple general rule that works. I believe that the proposed rule is more likely to cause problems where a reviewer demands a source (because the new rule says so) and the nominator doesn't understand why a source is needed nor how to find a source for something so obvious that no source even bothers to write it.
• ::::::::As for bickering over WP:CALC: I have been through many GAN processes on both sides where CALC might have been in play and don't recall any bickering. In the example that I provided involving the unfootnoted observation that 17/18 < 1, one of our most experienced reviewers (and nominators), User:Chiswick Chap, didn't even flag it as an issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I recall raising the point on a WikiJournal of Science article (developed from a Wikipedia page), and was politely informed by the mathematicians involved that the calculations would be obvious to any mathematician. My humble 'A level' maths did seem very far away at that moment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::My own standard is that basic arithmetic is obvious enough to fall under WP:CALC but that calculations that would require a mathematics degree to understand are probably going to need a source. But I guess this can be a matter where editors differ. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::I am not conflating them, I am responding to their being used as examples. If there is a risk of conflation, that is because of their prior use. We should indeed have a simple rule, and citing text is a very simple rule. If no source bothers to write something, it should not be in an article. CMD (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• No. With "exceptions" necessary for numerous specific situations, and because not all content can reasonably be challenged, a "yes" is the wrong rule. Fundamentally we entrust great discretion to GA writers and reviewers, who must have the knowledge and expertise to make judgments about irreducibly open-ended criteria, like what level of detail is or isn't necessary, and what is a fair balance of views on a particular subject. Likewise, in assessing the referencing, their good sense and consensus is the real foundation. The criteria should be high-level and general guidance, staying away from mechanical interpretation and from WP:CREEP. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Side comment. Recommend removing "(or line if the content is not in prose)". This sounds like a recipe for overciting - it's common to have a table or bulleted list that is all cited to the same source. This line, taken as written, seems to imply that every single bullet and every single row of the table needs a citation, even if it's the exact same citation. Now, in cases where there's an eclectic table or list that really is cited from a variety of sources, that's fine, but if it's obviously the same source (very common for stuff valid to support to primary sources, e.g. official lists), this is overkill. See Provinces_and_territories_of_Canada#Provinces as an example - putting the citation in the column header for where that column's data comes from is fine. As written, this implies we'd need to repeat each citation 13 times, once each row. (Would potentially be willing to support if this is removed, but am definitely opposed as long as this is kept.) SnowFire (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• No. Mandating a more specific location for references than we already do doesn't make the content any more verifiable. And, in general, I'm concerned about changes that allow for nitpicking over format, something that tends to drive people crazy and which improves the encyclopedia very little if at all. Especially when we're already frequently advising reviewers that they only need to "spot check" references to see if they verify the content in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone know who is responsible for SDZeroBot? The wording in the report is a bit misleading for the "still GA" statistic. For example, my report says:

Promoted GA nominations that are still GAs: 3

But in fact I have seven articles that were promoted to GA, and some then went to FA. The bot should say (in my report):

Promoted GA nominations that are still GA or better: 7

This is not just a matter of stoking my ego :-) ... the bot should produce a report that is less misleading (espcially if future GA processes ever use the stats from the bot to make decisions). And the bot knows if an article is FA or GA or neither, since the bot also produces FA reports ... so it has all the data needed. Thoughts on this possible change? Noleander (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:This has always driven me crazy, so I would love to see it tweaked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can just look at User:SDZeroBot to see that it is run by User:SD0001. Getting all articles that are subsequently promoted to FA right without getting something wrong is probably not as easy as it looks; the current version seems accurate (but I keep my own count on my userpage and make sure I understand exactly what the offset is between my count and the bot count and why). —Kusma (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think "GA or better" is necessarily right either -- an article promoted to FA and then demoted is not returned to GA status. I assume it is reset to B, but certainly not to higher than that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree.... what I was proposing was that the count include articles that were nominated for GA at one point in time, and are currently GA or FA. Im 99% sure that the bot software already has access to those numbers so it should be an easy matter to change it. Noleander (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:What report are you referring to? The only report SDZeroBot maintains is WP:WBGAN which does not have such wording. It indeed doesn't count articles that became FAs, as the bot doesn't have data about FAs. – SD0001 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm guessing this report: https://ganfilter.toolforge.org/g_editor_query/?editor_name=SSSB SSSB (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If so, that page is produced by ChristieBot, not SDZeroBot. The number it reports is taken from SDZeroBot's database, but the wording on the web page is ChristieBot's. I can change it but would like to get consensus here on what it should say instead before I make a change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Well, we do want to know that an article is still (GA or FA), not including demoted articles whether they were at GA or FA before demotion. If that can be done then "still GA or better" or "still GA or FA" would both be fine as wording, in my view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Unfortunately the FA database that ChristieBot maintains only goes back to August 2006, so any articles promoted to FA before then would not be identifiable. In addition, SDZeroBot's database doesn't include any articles that are no longer GAs, so I would only be able to look up the post-August 2006 information for articles that ChristieBot is aware were once GAs -- again the cutoff for that is around 2007. ChristieBot also does not track FAR. All this means that there would be some omissions in any information ChristieBot could add to the number given by SDZeroBot. Changing the wording used on the web page, if that's what we decide to do, is quick. Adding more information about any articles that are not currently GAs would require changes to the code and for the reasons above would be incomplete in some cases, but if there's a clear statement of what we would like ChristieBot to show, I can look into what it would take. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there anyway to have a reviewer withdraw from a nomination? It has been almost a month and the editor who picked up the nominations for Victorious: Music from the Hit TV Show and Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show has not even started despite being active. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:Have you pinged them at the review and/or left messages at their talk page? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes and they have not responded in days? What can be done? Shoot for the Stars (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Shoot for the Stars, I don't see a message on their talk page? -- asilvering (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as GA reviews, this feels wildly inadequate, I'm not sure any of the criteria was properly considered and the reason given for promoting does not line up with our criteria (cc @Willbill6272 as the reviewer and @Boneless Pizza! as the nominator). I would advocate for this article to placed back into the queue (and or have a proper review done). Sohom (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was about to request it because I felt a bit uncomfortable to that review, but it seems like he promised to another editor here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Willbill6272&diff=prev&oldid=1289413440]. If he didn't did anything at least for a week then it needs to be reverted back. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Likewise. I requested it after I noticed the incomplete review and was going to wait one week to give some review time before taking further action. I'd leave it up for a few more days, but if nothing is done after then, send it back to the queue. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Another user already took some review somehow before this user can. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hm. I only just gave a 2O to an earlier version of that article. Any review should definitely look at the previous review as well when an article has been relisted so soon. The new reviewer isn't obligated to agree with the previous reviewers, but not responding to those concerns at all is not great. -- asilvering (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::(To be clear, I'm talking about the reviewer here. I mean, obviously I personally think my own concerns ought to be responded to, otherwise I wouldn't have stated them in the first place, but submitters are always free to resubmit even without any changes at all if they don't like the outcome of the previous review. It's on the next reviewer to determine whether those concerns are important enough to withhold the GA status or not.) -- asilvering (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for clarifying 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Asilvering Hi. Can you review or do spotcheck so that my DYK would be successful :< 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Sorry, I don't do DYK work and don't know much about it, you're better off asking someone else. -- asilvering (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::oops sorry, I mean, can you do spotcheck at the GAN page #3 if its okay for you? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Ah, I've already been involved in a GAN for this article so it should probably be done by someone else. Hopefully someone less vulnerable to nerdsniping than Rollinginhisgrave. -- asilvering (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the follow-up review has still fallen a bit short, with no spot-check demonstrated. I intended to provide a more thorough review to my satisfaction but have instead spent the past few days reworking the article with {{u|Boneless Pizza!}}, as a result I have become a significant contributor and my actions can't be considered a review. The article is in much different shape than it was at Talk:Poop emoji/GA3 and it would be greatly appreciated if someone could give an outside opinion (particularly if the summary of Abel makes sense). Thanks, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Got response to copyeditor here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dhtwiki&diff=prev&oldid=1290811448]. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm really liking the GA review circles, and have used them several times. Small suggestion to improve the instructions at WP:Good_article_review_circles ... the term "cooling off period" is used for Step 3: WP:Good_article_review_circles#Step_3:_24-hour_cooling-off_period. That term is confusing in that context; normally "cooling off" is used after shooting a weapon or exerting oneself to exhaustion. In Step 3 of GARC, a better term may be something like "Confirmation period" or "Ratification period" or" "Affirmation period". Not a big deal, but GARC seems a bit underutilized, so anything to make it more inviting may be helpful. Noleander (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Change it if you want to, I guess, but I doubt this is affecting usage of review circles in any appreciable way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the buttons should overlay the right Wikipedia menu. SeaDragon1 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

What do I do in a situation like this? The review's been open for over a month with no progress and the reviewer's been inactive for three days (I pinged them on May 12 but got no response). — ^EF⁵ 00:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Talk:2021 Bowling Green tornadoes/GA1{{pb}}Let's wait at least until a week from the ping. If the review is not able to be finished, the nomination can be put back into the queue at its original date. CMD (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Chipmunkdavis, it's been almost a week now. — ^EF⁵ 14:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

When I am spot-checking the sources in an article, if I discover that a few of the links are broken somehow, is there any rule as to what action I should take? Is it ever appropriate to fail the article because of problems with the sources if it passes GA criteria 1, 3, 4, and 5, but has verifiability problems? Am I correct that the review may be put on hold for this reason? If the review is put on hold, and the nominator then indicates that the repairs have been made, is there any particular rule about additional checking of remaining sources? What percentage of the sources should be checked on the first pass? What percentage of remaining sources should be checked on a second pass? Is there any general guidance about how complete the checking of sources should be? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:The idea is that you as a reviewer are comfortable that the article generally does not plagiarise, and is backed up by the sources, rather than there being a strict numerical goal. 5-10% of sources is sometimes thrown around as a yardstick, but it's flexible (for example, in a very short article you might be easily able to just check every source, in a very long article you might just pick a couple per section). If there are no problems in that 10% then you might feel comfortable passing on that basis, however if some problems are found you might want to check further. A link being broken is not per se evidence of unverifiability; there may be a new location, archives, etc. Even with an offline source, you could ask the nominator for a supporting quote. It is fine to put an article on hold if sources need to be fixed to meet GACR2 (adding the usual note that sources do not need to be perfectly formatted, just identifiable eg. access-date for online sources and page numbers for longer sources). CMD (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::To add something a bit more concrete to CMD's first sentence, I wouldn't pass a GA unless I was satisfied that all the major claims in the article check out. The number of sources you'd have to check, and how deeply, would depend on how wide-ranging the content of the article is. I think it's important to go beyond just a random spot check, because it's easy to just end up being directed by RNG to a bunch of sources that don't really matter - you could remove that content from the article without changing much of the overall meaning. If an article leans heavily on a particular source, you should check that one. This isn't just important for the WP:V reasons, but also is usually where I find out that there's something missing from the article that means the "broad" criterion isn't quite fulfilled.

::As for broken links, you can just fix those yourself. If that's particularly complicated you can throw that job back at the nominator. -- asilvering (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Re dead links: perhaps surprisingly, a GA reviewer should not ask the nominator to fix them, unless they make it clear it's not a GA requirement but just a suggestion. Per WP:GACR, footnote 4, if the link is not a bare URL it is acceptable at GA, even if it's dead. However, if you have picked that source for a spot check the nominator is obliged to supply the content of the source, and the easiest way for them to do that is to fix the link, so that's an exception. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Not sure it's that clear cut, {{tl|dead link}} presumably falls within WP:QF3, so "large numbers" would need to be fixed if possible. That said, the common example of what is needed to meet that GACR footnote is an access-date for pretty much this reason. CMD (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I’ve been assuming the reverse — that footnote 4 means that that would not be a quick fail. I think I suggested here a couple of years ago that we stop allowing dead links but there was no consensus for that change. Is this one of those areas where actual practice differs from the apparent meaning of the criteria? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Actual practice in general is to fix dead links, which is not specifically related to GANs. Allowing dead links is different from taking them as standard, and not all dead links are the same. Mainly this is a corollary of our expectations that nominators are familiar with the article and its sources. If a nominator was not the one to add the original link, they cannot not be familiar with how it supports its claims. CMD (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, @Mike Christie, thanks for pointing that out. I do mean as a suggestion, though if it's well and truly dead it might end up being a WP:V problem that does need fixing. -- asilvering (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If the nominator can't demonstrate that the source supports the content, the corresponding claim needs to be adjusted or removed. A reviewer is perfectly within their right to challenge everything that is cited to a dead link. —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, that's the WP:V problem that does need fixing that I'm talking about. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I thought I understood how to interpret criteria 2A, but I currently have two GAs being reviewed where it seems like a much higher standard is being expected. I’m raising the topic here to confirm the consensus. My understanding was that citations just needed to be sufficient to identify the source in question, but there’s no need for consistency, elegant formatting, or even necessarily page numbers, as long as verification is possible. One of my reviews is requesting that {{tq|when there are multiple references used to a particular source, these are not repeated in the reference list and, in the case of different pages in one book or journal, short citations are used}}; the other requested a number of polishing details, including {{tq|Page ranges are given inconsistently: pp. 42–3 for ref 6; pp. 31–32 for ref 10 (the second form is correct, according to our manual of style).}} and {{tq|You sometimes do and sometimes don't give the publisher's location}}. In both cases, it seems the reviewers are treating these as non-optional. I’m very surprised by these requests in both reviews, so my question here is, have I grossly misread the consensus about the GA criteria? (Courtesy pings: {{u|simongraham}}, {{u|Tim riley}}, and {{u|Eddie891}}) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:My understanding of GA citation requirements is that the reference should be sufficient enough that a reader could find and verify the text. For websites, this means a hyperlink is fine (as I can click on the link and verify the information). For books, enough information to find the source is needed (usually author name and title of the source). There is no requirement for consistency or to use any template at the GA level. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:The GA criteria only state that {{green|"enough information must be supplied so that the reviewer is able to identify the source"}}. In the case of Bungay Castle (novel), repeating the citation with different page numbers is not relevant to WP:REPEATCITE, because there is no {{green|"multiple use of the same inline citation or footnote"}}—the page numbers differentiate. For Ann Radcliffe, Tim makes reference to MOS:NOTES, which states {{green|"Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article"}}; "citation method", not "citation formatting", means that information such as publisher location is not required to be consistent. That said, if something explicitly within the MoS is brought up, such as MOS:PAGERANGE, it is a good idea to fix it whether or not it is required by the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with Airship, but will add re {{tq|there’s no need for.. even necessarily page numbers}}: page numbers/ranges for a book are definitely needed for GA. Citing a full book for a single claim is a massive hindrance to verifiability.

:Also, as an example of why having proper formatting is worthwhile, even if not *required*, at Ann Radcliffe there were enough formatting things to be tweaked that some mistakes crept in (a book had the wrong publisher, some websites had the wrong name, and at least one book had insufficient information to identify what edition was being cited). All of those are things it is valid to ask to be repaired for GA, and it is hard to identify them without the references being consistant. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::For the record, the book with an unclear edition was Northanger Abbey, a work with so many editions that a page number is unhelpful. To verify a quote from that novel, any reader can simply pull up a convenient ebook and ctrl-F the words. The other mistakes you note (while they were worth correcting and I highly appreciate your hard work to implement the improvements you advise!) are also not a serious bar to verification. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Serious, no, but I think any reviewer would be within their rights to ask for them to be corrected; it's just hard to even identify things like that without consistent formatting. Either way, I largely agree with your opinion! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::While this isn't something I would demand at GA level, I think with things like Northanger Abbey that are on wikisource, best practice is to make it easy on the reader and link to the actual wikisource chapter or even page. —Kusma (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Incredible to see this immediately below a conversation where we're saying "not all dead links are so bad, actually". The only parts of the MOS that are required for GA are the ones in 1b. The "presented in accordance with the layout style guideline" in 2a is simply saying "you need a list of references, and it needs to be at the end of the article somewhere". That's it. I don't even think the first review you cite is in accordance with FA norms, let alone GA ones. -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:The formal expectations for source formatting in GAs are a bit out of date in my view, but they are quite low. Many good reviewers do not review strictly by the GA criteria, but give general suggestions how to improve the article; you can always argue that some points are beyond the criteria and so you should not be expected to act on them. But if the suggestions are easy to implement and improve the article, wouldn't you want to follow them? —Kusma (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::In this case, I did argue that the points were beyond the criteria and encountered disagreement, hence coming here. I really welcome opportunities to improve the articles I submit to GA, which is why it's disappointing to have reviewers fixate on citation issues that are not part of the criteria instead of what feels like the "meat" of the article. For example, I really appreciate how your own review of St. Albans Abbey is pushing me to integrate more sources and better explain the material. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::GA is supposed to be a lightweight check of an article to make sure it's well-written, sourced, and meets some basic requirements. It should be a quick, painless process with minimum burden on the nominator and the reviewer. Demanding more of someone's time is unfair to the nominator because it's not what they signed up for, and it's unfair to everyone else participating at GAN because it slows down the whole process. If someone wants to provide a review with more general advice, then I encourage them to go to WP:PR where reviewers are also desperately needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::GA typically gives much better peer reviews than PR. I do not understand your comments about "fairness". —Kusma (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this isn't a Good Article question, but a question about ratings. If I have passed an article, and then use the Rater gadget, it may show me multiple WikiProjects in which there is no rating. Is it better to leave them alone so that the rating is inherited from the shell, or to assign a Good Article rating in each project? Is this partly a matter of backward compatibility from before there was a shell and the ratings were all by projects? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Leave them alone, and yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear at this point that it's not totally clear for new and even experienced reviewers what exactly they're supposed to be looking for. WP:GANI and WP:RGA are almost useless in teaching people how to review in their current state. It's all based around unspoken norms and expectations, with accepted interpretations of the criteria being scattered in the talk page archives here instead of codified. When do we plan on updated or revamping these pages so they actually guide people through each step from creating the page to passing/failing in a way that's understandable? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Whenever someone actually gets around to revamping them, I assume. Maybe that someone could be you? -- asilvering (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did, two years ago: User:Thebiguglyalien/Good article reviewing guide. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm familiar with your guide. I mean the pages you've specifically drawn attention to. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Are you putting it forward as a consolidated replacement for WP:GANI and WP:RGA? Obviously that needs an RfC, but I would suggest putting it under {{tl|draft proposal}} and workshopping it with the community for the moment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm asking that we stop enforcing unspoken rules and then complaining about the fact that we have so few reviewers. I've put in my effort to bring us toward that goal, I'd like to see everyone else's. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Which unspoken rules do you particularly have in mind {{u|Thebiguglyalien}}? And, more relevantly, do you mind if I copy-paste User:Thebiguglyalien/Good article reviewing guide into WP-space, if you don't intend to take it further? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's all unspoken. WP:GAN/I#R3 only requires that {{tq|An in-depth review is provided}} and that you {{tq|provide a review on the review page justifying that decision}}. The former doesn't say anything about writing anything down as you do that in-depth review, and the latter could be fulfilled with two sentences. RGA says {{tq|bear in mind that future editors may be interested in your reasoning, so don't just leave an all-positive checklist. Suggestions for further improvement may be welcomed by article editors.}} Again, you can fulfil that by writing a few sentences in the review page, and even that comes across as a suggestion rather than an expectation. A reasonable person could carefully read GANI and RGA and come to the conclusion that a quickpass is standard. And yes, feel free to do whatever you like with that page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've been thinking lately about the need for a User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing style tutorial. Perhaps as an additional resource to a better written instruction set. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 00:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}Alright, I've moved it to Wikipedia:Good article reviewing guide, with the eventual goal of replacing WP:RGA and the relevant half of WP:GANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see two threads here saying that the reviewing instructions are broken, specifically: {{tq|I think it's pretty clear at this point that it's not totally clear for new and even experienced reviewers what exactly they're supposed to be looking for.}}, and referring to unspoken (which should be unwritten) rules. I am not sure whether I am a new reviewer or an experienced reviewer. I have 200,000 edits and have reviewed more than 7,000 draft articles, and have reviewed 3 Good Article nominations. So maybe it doesn't matter if I am an experienced reviewer or a new reviewer. The only instructions that I think are unclear are those having to do with references and source checking. Are there any other uncertainties, or do the questions have to do with checking the references? So what are the unwritten rules? If there are unwritten rules, we should either formalize them by including them in the guidelines, or conclude that they should not be rules? Can someone please tell an "experienced new reviewer" what the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's all unspoken. WP:GAN/I#R3 only requires that {{tq|An in-depth review is provided}} and that you {{tq|provide a review on the review page justifying that decision}}. The former doesn't say anything about writing anything down as you do that in-depth review, and the latter could be fulfilled with two sentences. RGA says {{tq|bear in mind that future editors may be interested in your reasoning, so don't just leave an all-positive checklist. Suggestions for further improvement may be welcomed by article editors.}} Again, you can fulfil that by writing a few sentences in the review page, and even that comes across as a suggestion rather than an expectation. A reasonable person could carefully read GANI and RGA and come to the conclusion that a quickpass is standard. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::User:Thebiguglyalien - I now see that there are two separate areas where the reviewers may want better instructions, the depth of the review itself, and the documentation of that review. Your comments appear to be that the instructions for documenting the review say very little. I agree, and I don't know much documentation of the review is expected. I also think that the instructions are not clear about the scope of the checking of the references. Not everyone agrees on what the unwritten rules are, which is a reason it may be difficult to write them down. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The page Muisca raft was nominated a good article, but it cites no detailed studies explicitly arguing that the raft was associated with the Eld Dorado ceremony (rather, is has studies and more general works focused on the El Dorado ceremony, which should instead have its own page). A recent article in "Pre-Colombian Central America, Colombia and Ecuador: an integrated approach" by prominent muisca scholars Uribe Villegas, Martinón-Torres, and Quintero Guzmán (who have written on this subject for several years) states that the musics raft, made approximately between 1200 and 1400, was made in the context of the local Pasca chiefdom, not the Guatavita ceremony. Currently, this article only proves the Guatavita ceremony happened, however no academic source from after 2000 which deals primarily with this subject (the raft) seems to say that the raft is associated with this specific ceremony. Only short news articles and museum pages. The serious sources cited here mostly do not directly associate the raft and the ceremony if they are recent. Therefore, it is extremely important to add this debate, and to add the growing doubt about this raft found in Pasca corresponding to the (real, yet in a different context and time) Guatavita ceremony. The article currently spends too much time arguing about the ceremony and the not the object itself, however an article Guatavita ceremony would be more appropriate for this. Therefore, the Good Article label is not appropriate. To cite the conclusion, "Interpretations must be informed by an awareness of broader political tensions and ritual practice, especially propitiatory offerings led by chiefs, in the Pasca region during the late muisca period". Earlier, it's made clear that the Museo del Oro specifically has used the association to Guatavita for tourism. The book is a collection of serious studies by Dumbarton Oaks, who already published similar important studies in the 1990s and 2000s on the isthmo-colombian area, so important they contributed to changing the area's name from "intermediate" to "isthmo-Colombian". Articles about the muisca generally rely too much on old 19th/early 20th century sources or short news pieces or Museum pages, instead of relying on modern archeological studies (like the very [https://www.google.de/books/edition/Regional_Archaeology_in_the_Muisca_Terri/8NRLqFjHL7UC?hl=de important work of Langebaek] or more [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1A_xjZvE-kU recently Jorge Gamboa]). Here is a link to the source: https://www.google.de/books/edition/Pre_Columbian_Central_America_Colombia_a/V1U9zgEACAAJ?hl=de . Regards, 80.187.73.169 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi IP, it doesn't look to me like you've raised any of these concerns at Talk:Muisca raft. Could you do that, please? You're also welcome to start editing the article yourself to bring it in line with recent scholarly work. -- asilvering (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did, but a weird glitch apparently happened as my addition to the discussion is absent from the page history (but my comment is present on Muisca Raft:talk) 80.187.73.169 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, I think I’m at fault here. I fixed the problem (I think). 80.187.73.169 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Not quite. I'll fix it for you. -- asilvering (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ah, I fixed half of it and in the time that took me, you've fixed the other. All good now. But you may want to re-ping the editors you tried to contact earlier, by replying to your own post and tagging them in again. Not sure if your copy-paste will have pinged them properly. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ok. Thanks for your help. Regards, 80.187.73.169 (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think I resolved the issue now (with sources cited), though it was fairly weird for the article to cite the experts in question (important ones for this subject) multiple times without ever mentioning their sceptical stance towards the association of the Guatavita ceremony with the raft. I have now added scepticism (as well as the regional historical context of the offering, which isn't really controversial) on the raft's association with El Dorado (as many such ceremonies existed across Muisca territory, not just the El Dorado one). Regards, 80.187.73.169 (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

So after a discussion with another user, I moved the title of the article to clarify article naming and avoid an unnecessary move discussion (Since I assumed the new change would be largely uncontroversial), but as it turns out, the change caused the GAN to autofail (I assume since it's a different title now? Idk how that works). Nothing about article content has changed and the review was still active and ongoing; what is the procedure for something like this? I'm admittedly unsure on what to do here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)