Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

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'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)

::Alright. I changed it to "confirmation period". I understand that this improvement will not improve GARC usage "in any appreciable way"; but every little bit helps. Noleander (talk) 20:05, 19 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)

:::Week has passed and the reviewer has not edited in slightly over a week. The review was opened a month and a half ago. Absent no objections, I'll close the review soon and move this back to queue. CMD (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Reset. CMD (talk) 14:35, 20 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)

:::::::{{u|Asilvering}}, this is the discussion I remember. I don't think there is consensus for a reviewer to challenge every dead link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Personally, I would never pass a GAR while it had unresolved dead links, even if it isn't explicitly stated in the GACR. If nobody can verify the content, it's as good as unsourced. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't like to do so either, but I also don't like going beyond GACR in a review -- we've had multiple threads here about the issue of reviewers asking for non-GACR fixes and per the linked discussion I think many would put deadlinks under that heading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::A review policy of "no dead links unless you can demonstrate that the dead link is a reliable source" seems perfectly within the GA criteria to me and is within the spirit of the discussion you linked to. —Kusma (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I agree. I don't think that discussion would allow a reviewer to say "as well as showing it's reliable, you have to change it for a live link", though, which is how I think some reviewers approach dead links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I honestly do think you could ask for them to "show it's reliable and that it is accessible somewhere [i.e. an archive service]", if not "change it in the article to the live link". In the same way that we can't cite other forms of lost media directly, if it cannot be verified by anyone the content is by definition not verifiable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:08, 20 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)

:Talk:Pokémon competitive play/GA1{{pb}}When you move a page you should move subpages with it, this includes GA pages. I've moved the review, pretty sure the closing scripts etc. will work fine now. CMD (talk) 23:10, 18 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)