Welcome to the Good Article Help Desk |
- This page is for asking questions relating to a Good article you have nominated or are reviewing
- For suggestions relating to the Good article process ask at the nominations talk page
- For suggestions relating to changes or additions to the Good article criteria ask at the criteria talk page
|
Search or read Frequently Asked Questions
|
Search the Good article archives
|
|
Mentors |
The following is a list of users who have volunteered to act as mentors to Good article reviewers. New reviewers are strongly encouraged to contact one of the editors below on their user talk page for assistance and advice on using the Good article nominations process, applying the Good article criteria, and producing a good review. All reviewers are welcome to contact mentors for advice on individual issues.
Mentor list |
Mentors often specialize in reviewing articles within a particular area. They also may have expertise in a particular aspect of the Good article process. This is indicated after their user names below. If you wish to mentor new reviewers please add your name to the list.
- Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) – Can assist with issues concerning images, inline citations/references, GA sweeps, and GA nominations general questions. A list of the reviews I have performed can be seen at my GA subpage.
- bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) – Mostly experienced with CVG and organism GAs, but I'm pretty sure I can handle image, citation, and general questions about GAN.
- Yamanbaiia (talk · contribs) – Manual of Style enthusiast.
- Juliancolton (talk · contribs) – I can help with pretty much anything related to the GA process.
- OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) – Sweeps, references, weasel words, and jargon words
- Ceranthor (talk · contribs) – I'll do anything, as long as it is geography, animals, science, etc.
- Majoreditor (talk · contribs) – I am happy to help with most any type of review.
- Sanguis Sanies (talk · contribs) – Anything Film and Television related, I'll take stab at anything else: the two GA articles I helped were both Law related.
- Mm40 (talk · contribs) – Quality of prose and reference formatting are strong points in my reviews. History, arts, or sports related articles, see here for my reviews.
- Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) – anything not pop culture or sports is probably fair game for me.
- Arsenikk (talk · contribs) – Transport (my field of excellence), video games, economics, business, politics, government, geography, places and engineering; I'm better at content, referencing, images, aesthetics and MOS than prose.
- Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) – Art, Architecture, Theatre, Film, most topics really, but I tend to avoid American sports, TV shows and contemporary pop music.
- Aircorn (talk · contribs) Willing to help out in most topics.
- Dom497 (talk · contribs) I can help with just about everything.
- Hahc21 (talk · contribs) – I love to help, mostly on inline citations, referencing and original research. Mainly on music and video game related articles.
- Yash! (talk · contribs) - I've reviewed 50+ Good article nominations and have helped promote 8 articles to GA status. I can help while dealing with references, fixing MoS, expanding prose, getting facts accurate, etc. I can generally assist at any topic but particularly, articles falling in the categories of geography, music, history, sports, India, Pakistan, Green Day are my favorites.
- Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) - I've improved 30 articles to Good article status and reviewed over 60. I'm particularly keen on music, albums and places/geography articles.
|
|
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160224123911im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg/40px-Replacement_filing_cabinet.svg.png)
Archives |
|
|
Threads older than 90 days may be archived. |
Article not showing up on list
Hi! I've recently nominated the article Ehrhardt (typeface) after polishing it up. The nomination appears on the article's talk page but not on the list. (I decided to place it under Art & Architecture). Any thoughts? This is my first try at this so probably a stupid mistake of mine. Blythwood (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Blythwood, the bot that handles nominations, new and old, was down for two days, only returning to action about seven hours ago. Unfortunately, you added your nomination during the period it was down. The good news is that with the bot now operating properly, the nomination is showing up in the Art and Architecture section where it belongs, in chronological order near the bottom. Best of luck going forward! (It will probably be a while before the article is picked up for review; we have a large backlog.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Requirements
I have had a previous account, however I went for a clean start. Do I need to have something like a year officially registered on my Wikipedia account or can I review whenever I want. Also, are there any helper scripts? Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dat Guy, thank-you for offering to review; your effort is appreciated. There is no requirement to wait a year, especially if you are already familiar with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines. You are expected to be familiar with the Good article criteria and the instructions for reviewing. Reviewing scripts appear on the right side of the review page in the "GA toolbox" after the review is started, and you may add one of these templates to the bottom of the review page to assist you, but obviously no script can substitute for your best judgement on how well the article meets the GA criteria. You may want to look at the work of other reviewers by going to the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page and clicking any "discuss review" link. Feel free to leave another message here if you need further assistance, and thanks again. (P.S. Your "Contribs" link in your signature is broken.) Prhartcom (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Procedure for withdrawing if reviewer can no longer continue review
A reviewer can no longer complete the review for whatever reason - time constraints, or whatever that has nothing to do with the quality of the article. How is that best handled? Atsme📞📧 02:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- This editor's question was answered here: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Reviewer could not continue, left with unfinished business.... Prhartcom (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Serious concerns
Having just gone through an abysmal experience with a GA review, I'd like to know if it is possible or even appropriate to suggest a particular editor not be allowed to do GA reviews. Please see Talk:Billy the Kid/GA2 for continuous examples as to why I feel the reviewer is absolutely not yet ready to be a GA reviewer. Everything from having the original "pass" of the article to GA overturned and taken over by an experienced reviewer, an inability to remain neutral and making derogatory comments about the nominator to other editors, being essentially absent from doing anything more with the review, inappropriate actions, reactions, and comments, a basic lack of understanding general Wikipedia policy, and a final unilateral fail by the reviewer for invalid reasons (and failure to know what has been actually going on at the article) -- all of this brought me here. To say I am frustrated with the final result after working quite hard to comply with the review suggestions to bring it to GA status would be an understatement. But I've had serious doubts about the reviewer's competence from the beginning (and expressed such at the review talk page early on). To be clear, the fail isn't really what brought me here. The consistently demonstrated incompetence of the reviewer is. I don't want to see anyone else go through what I have been through with this reviewer. Any productive and helpful comments about this would be appreciated. Any advice that can be given about whether this needs to be taken elsewhere would also be appreciated. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Winkelvi, first of all, thank-you for your contributions to Wikipedia and for nominating an article for GA. I have just finished the work of reading all of the background on this case. A nominator is often a thankless role, especially in disputes, as their opponents snipe at their work from all sides but did not have to go through the enormous effort of preparing the article for its nomination. I can fully understand your frustration. To be taken from the high of seeing your work initially pass, to be dragged through the emotions of seeing your work criticized, only to be taken to the low of seeing your work finally fail, must feel, as you rightly said, abysmal. Like other editors have already kindly said to you, I am so sorry you suffered pain from the experience.
- Please forgive me for my final decision here, but I believe your feelings directed at the reviewer are misplaced; the reviewer largely acted appropriately in their decision to fail the article at this time. It most definitely is not stable, one of the six criteria, and reviewer's decision shall be respected. Please, do not worry; I have three positive things for you to take away from this! First, as BlueMoonset wisely said, a GA fail has no stigma attached. It certainly does not mean "you failed". I myself have received a few GA fails. A fail simply means the GA reviewer has decided that the article does not meet GA right now; that's all. Second, this does not mean you, as nominator, cannot try again. Like it says at the GA instructions, if the nominator's article receives a fail, they can take the reviewer's suggestions into account and renominate the article. No one can stop you from doing that. I suggest you wait as long as six months to allow the dust to settle, your head to clear, others to become distracted with something else, and stability to return before trying again. Lastly, as others have truthfully said, I fully expect your efforts to eventually be rewarded and a GA icon to be added to the top of this article. All that is really happening here is you are agreeing to step back away from the article for a good long while, giving yourself time to consider the advice of others who truly do share the same goals as you, taking a good long honest look at your own behavior, then at last making those few needed improvements that the article deserves, renominating it, and once again hoping for the best as all nominators do. You absolutely know, don't you, that you have the skill, the perseverance, the willingness to do whatever it takes to succeed. I'm quite sure the article is very close. Your efforts will eventually be rewarded. The article will eventually be given the GA it deserves. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Prhartcom, the article has been renominated. The listing for it, however, seems to think there is already an active review occurring ("Discuss review") and takes one to the GA1 of the article. Is there something that can be done to fix this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Winkelvi, adding the page directly to WP:GAN will not work; it will be overwritten by the bot on the next edit. You need to follow the instructions at WP:GAI § Step 2: Nominating the article. Relentlessly (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! Can I slap myself with a trout? Good lord, I knew that. Thanks for your help, Relentlessly. I'm going to go hide my head in shame and self-disgust now. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, no Winkelvi no shame - this is what help pages are for and why Prhartcom is such a treasure. I just went through something similar so I'll add a trout slap for both of us!!
Self-trout Atsme📞📧 01:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Atsme, thanks for giving me words to help me lift my head back up just in time to be trout-slapped! And yes, I am learning what a treasure Prhartcom is. Amazing, really. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Winkelvi: ever been to a turkey shoot?
Atsme📞📧 01:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yep! Years ago when I was a kid. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
|