Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Issue regarding a new reviewer

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)

::::They waited almost a whole month to respond and they then deleted both reviews [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vestrian24Bio/Logs/CSD_log&oldid=1290989121] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vestrian24Bio/Logs/CSD_log] without telling me at all after saying they would review it. It is super frustrating that reviewers can do this. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGood_article_review_circles%2Fdoc&diff=1291344034&oldid=1291339433 added some words] to step 4 of the GA Review circle instructions. I boldly changed

: {{green|Try to complete the review within a timely manner (reviews typically take no longer than seven days).}}

to be

: {{green|You should start the review and make significant progress within three days of accepting the notification. You should complete the review within seven days (provided the nominator is responding promptly to your suggestions).}}

The purpose of the change is to ensure that participants don't ignore their obligations to start the review. Background: I've participated in GARC five times in the past five months, and three of the five times, the reviewer did not make significant progress (or even start the review) for 5 or more days, even after I gave them polite reminders.

Since this appears to be a common issue, I boldly added the guidance that a GARC review should be substantially started within 3 days, which is reasonable in the GA review circle context. In other words, in exchange for getting a fairly prompt review of their own article, they are obligated to uphold their end of the bargain. I used the word "should" rather than "must" because life happens, and GA reviews cannot always progress on a rigid timetable. I'm not suggesting that the "should start review within 3 days" suggestion apply to GA nominations happening through the normal GA process{{snd}}this is only for GA Review Circles, where benefits come with responsibilities. Noleander (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't participated in GARC, but I did assume it came with the expectation of reasonably rapid reviews. However, that is for starting a review, I would not limit the end of the review to seven days. CMD (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::The seven day goal was already in the review circle instructions, although I did change the phrasing from typically to should. But we can change it back to typically if that's the consensus.

::The essence of this change is not 7 days or 8 days.... it's to remind participants that they shouldn't devote all their time exclusively to working on their own articles. They need apportion a decent amount of time to doing the review they committed to doing.

::In 60% of my review circles, I watched my reviewer working on their own articles for 4, 5, 6 days consecutively, not pausing to review my article. (BTW: please do not look at my circles for identities: this issue is about the process, not the individuals).

::An alternative to setting a 3-day start window would be something like: "Participants should spend roughly as much time doing the review, as tending to their own GAN article" but that seems to be a lot more contentious and confusing, so I did not suggest that. Noleander (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think stating something more explicit would be better, I did not get the idea of working on both from the timeframe wording. CMD (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it makes sense to encourage people to prioritise getting their review done over responding to any reviews they receive. —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Okay. How about changing the text (shown above, in green) to:

:::::: {{green|You should prioritize the review over working on your own GAN article. You should complete the review within seven days (provided the nominator is responding promptly to your suggestions).}}

:::::Noleander (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Per the above, I changed the GARC step 4 instructions to {{green|Performing the review should be prioritized higher than work on your own GAN article. You should complete the review within seven days (provided the nominator is responding promptly to your suggestions). }}

:Shouldn't conversations of this sort be at Wikipedia talk:Good article review circles? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't know. I got the impression that all GA-related discussions were supposed to be on _this_ talk page ( Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations ) because the row of tabs at the top has a large "Discussion" button.

::Also, that other talk page ( Wikipedia talk:Good article review circles ) appears to be devoted to the process of initiating the individual review circles. But, if it should be moved, let's move it. Noleander (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Tarlby has been closing old WP:GARs. Most of the closures are adequate closures, but I wasn't sure if this one was appropriate, as I am still working on it, and there wasn't a consenus or a lack of activity. I reverted some of their edits, but I'm not sure if this is an appropriate response. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 23:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I looked at the reassessment discussion and didn't see you explicitly state that you were working on the article, only that the GA review was defective. I looked at the revision history and saw an edit from 5 days ago. Before then was 11 days ago. I did not scroll further down the revision history or look at who made the edits I looked at (which was you), so I just assumed no one was working on it and delisted the article. This was just a case of me not thoroughly doing my chores. I think reverting me was the right decision. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::In WP:GAR it states that you should only delist when {{green|there have been no responses to the reassessment and no improvements to the article}} or {{green|after at least one month, if the article's issues are unresolved and there are no objections to delisting, the discussion may be closed as delist. Reassessments should not be closed as delist while editors are making good-faith improvements to the article.}} Even though it has been one month, I was making sporadic improvements to the article and there was movement to delist. Its okay though; just keep this in mind for next time.

::The problem is that you have used the GANReviewTool and reverting those may cause problems. Not sure how to fix this. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 00:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No problems worth caring about. {{u|Tarlby}}, when you close GARs as delist, please make sure that you assign a new WikiProject rating on the article talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::👌 Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

FYI all, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AI editing? concerning User:Jorge906 notes Talk:King of My Heart/GA2 is an AI-generated review. Iirc past precedent has deleted such cases, but probably best to concentrate discussion at AN. CMD (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This GAN has been open for 9 months now. The reviewer Cplakidas has not been active on Wiki for the past month, and the review seems quite close to completion. Would it be alright if another reviewer pitched in here? I would like to complete it myself if that is accepted procedure. Matarisvan (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Matarisvan, as the reviewer has not edited since 21 April, if you are not a contributor to the article (and you do not seem to be) then you can pick it as a second reviewer. CMD (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I was looking through the GA list for the backlog drive, when I noticed that A Matter of Time, an album which is expected to be released in about three months, was recently nominated for GA. Is there precedent in this case? It feels like it's too early for an article like this to be truly comprehensive and become a GA, however, from a quick look, it does seem to address the main aspects of its topic which are currently available, and it is technically stable at the moment. Leafy46 (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:In cases like this, "stability" is assumed to mean more broadly that it's not going to be subject to significant changes. In this case, the current version is not stable because it's going to need substantial changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)