Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsFAQBacklog drivesMentorshipReview circlesDiscussionReassessmentReport

Good article nominations

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

What to do about reviews opened by blocked users?

Hey all. Today, a user who had opened a review for one of my nominations was indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. The review page is now empty, with no comments. This is unfortunate, as I've been waiting for a review on this since April, but I notice this user was also concurrently reviewing 3 other GA nominations (technical geography, black holes in fiction and Patricia Bullrich), so I assume those will not be completed either.

What can be done in these cases? I assume the reviews can't be marked as finished in many cases, but does this mean nominators will have to go back to square one and join the back of the queue? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• The review of Anarchism without adjectives hasn't been edited at all so I think if you request speedy deletion as G6 it will keep its place in the queue? (cf. WP:GAN/I#N4a). For the others, probably the easiest thing would be for someone else who is interested to take over the review; if there isn't anyone who would be willing I don't know if there's a way of closing the review while retaining the nomination's place in the queue. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @GeogSage, TompaDompa, and Cambalachero: Courtesy ping. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Caeciliusinhorto-public: I've had the review page speedily deleted, thanks for the help! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  I almost hesitate to say this since I suppose it could be abused, but the date of nomination is taken from the parameters in the template on the talk page, not from the timestamp when the template was added. That means you can fail a nomination and create a new one and have it retain its place in the queue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have done just that for my nomination (Talk:Black holes in fiction/GA2). TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Talk:Technical geography/GA1 seems to have had some work, but it's almost a month since the nominator was pinged so it may be close to being wrapped up as resubmit when fixes are made.
• Talk:Black holes in fiction/GA2 has had almost no review, pending no objections the best thing to do there is increment for a new reviewer.
• Talk:Patricia Bullrich/GA1 is a bit trickier, has had some review, but it is incomplete including there being no spot checks.
• CMD (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand the situation, and have no rush. The article of Patricia Bullrich may be closed as failed and then nominated again, I'll just wait for a new reviewer to show up. Cambalachero (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, done. CMD (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I was working on finishing technical geography up. I nominated it, and the reviewer took some time to get back to me due to life things. By the time the got back, I was defending my dissertation, starting a new job so a bit busy. I had set aside time this week to finish. This block is shocking to me honestly, the user was pretty upstanding and involved in a number of projects from what I've seen. I'm not sure what happened, and so suddenly at that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. At the very least, once you have fixed up the sources and page numbers, someone else is needed to carry out a spot check. CMD (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm at a bit of an impass here. Should I renominate and go through again, the process was longer then usual due to life events for both of us, but I think it was almost done.... GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@GeogSage: Maybe try asking for a second opinion to finish the review? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nominations

I suggest that The Blue Rider's nominations simply be removed, i.e. the articles unnominated. These are:

• Talk:Elephant Rock (Iceland), 2 November 2024
• Talk:Mordechai Schlein. 28 October 2024
• Talk:Tamara Bunke, 9 November 2024
• Talk:Tamara (given name), 14 October 2024
• Talk:Fiona, 22 October 2024
• Talk:José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage, 10 November 2024

—Alalch E. 22:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

All six nominations have been removed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Split 2000 to 2004 song category

At Wikipedia:Good articles/Music I have split "2000 to 2004 songs" into "2000 to 2002 songs" (130 articles) and "2003 to 2004 songs" (96 articles). This allows each category to be smaller and articles easier to find on the list. I hope others will take a look to ensure that articles are put in the correct category. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why "From the Bottom of My Broken Heart" is classified as a 2000 song rather than a 1999 song, but it's been there since the subpage was created in 2012. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Thank God I Found You" is the same way. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend just BOLDly moving them, it's probably just an error that nobody noticed. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As I was splitting the section, I noticed other similarly misclassified songs (one was released in 2014 that I had to move!). If mistakes are found, please feel free to fix them. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1 again

Sorry. I might need another reviewer in Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1, and there has been no active discussion for over a month. That said, I might declare a second opinion or request a delete and restart the discussion review. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Kevin L. McCrudden

There have been several attempts for this name / person that have been rejected or blocked for some reason. I am Kevin L. McCrudden. I have been approached by people that want me to pay them for a Wiki page, which I know is not acceptable, but I do not know why the other attempts have been blocked? 75.167.101.4 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP, this isn't the right place to ask, but in the meantime Wikipedia:Notability may prove a helpful page. CMD (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth starting a reassessment for a page that only fails one of the criteria?

This revision of common cold was promoted in 2011. Since then, the article has been improved quite considerably, except in one respect: there are citations in the lead, all of which appears to be redundant with body citations, thus failing criterion 1b. All other criterions appear to be met. Is a GAR worth it? Mach61 07:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If the only thing to be done is remove citations from the lead, per Wikipedia:CITELEAD, just be Wikipedia:BOLD and remove those citations. No need for a GAR. SSSB (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE (which is what I assume you are referring to) states "the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article". It absolutely does not forbid redundant citations in the lead. This is not a problem for GA and not a reason to initiate a GAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's not even something to be done. An article can have citations in the lead duplicating those in the body. It just doesn't have to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I could have sworn the text in that section was much more negative towards redundant citations; chalk that up to faulty memory. Clearly the answer is "no" for starting a GAR. Mach61 07:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I took too long reading, and the issue is now resolved, but for anyone interested, the editor/physician who originally nominated the article redid the lead in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_cold&diff=725185876&oldid=700051319 It seems to be more accurate (including sinuses, noting pneumonia) and more generalized in the language (removing "via conjunctivitis"). It's good to see articles continue to improve after getting stamped. In addition to what others note above (no rule against citations in the lead), I'll also add that the advice in MOS:LEADCITE about "complex, current, or controversial subjects" seems to recommend the citations in the third paragraph (the one about treatment); people have a plethora of folk remedies for the cold. At various points, editors have added {{citation needed}} tags to the lead,[1][2] so it makes sense to replace those tags with citations. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

How should a reviewer evaluate notability?

Prhartcom, how should a reviewer "ensure" that an article meets WP:N?[3] Past discussions have not found consensus to add notability to the criteria.[4][5] The potential for a GAN to evaluate or affect notability has also come up as an issue at ANI.[6] Also, I don't see how "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines applicable to ALL articles"^[7] is relevant for the instructions; every page of the Manual of Style is a guideline, but a GA review only addresses certain parts. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

GANs are completely unrelated to notability. If you think something is non-notable, start an AFD like you would for any other article. Don't decline the GAN on notability grounds, because notability is not part of the criteria. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

All articles, not just GA, must meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Articles that meet the P&G may not meet the higher standard of GA. The GA review process formerly checks the P&G first and then the GA criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a seperate forum and process for determining notability: WP:AfD. I don't see why there needs to be an overlap. To answer the initially query in this thread: the reviewer can determine if notability is met by examing if the sources cited show significant coverage. SSSB (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

FAQ updates

Prhartcom, I appreciate your copyediting of the Wikipedia:Good article frequently asked questions overall, but I think you should put back the links. Unlike an article, in which we pretend (in the face of evidence to the contrary) that readers will start at the top and proceed to the bottom in a linear fashion, and therefore they need to have a link only once, in a FAQ, we expect people to normally skip to the one or two relevant questions, and to need the relevant link directly in that question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I will put some back. Thanks for the comment. Prhartcom (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Color scheme

I'm not usually too fussed about appearances, but I noticed today that Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header is a different green than the green in the GA icon. There are a couple of editors who seem to like designing things. Should we ask one of them to update the color scheme for us? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The GA icon fill hex is #DED, a very pale colour. The tab fill hex is #90EE90. Same colour, higher saturation.

The link text is #0645AD. Accessibility checkers like WebAIM prefer #DED because it has a contrast over 7:1, whereas the current #90EE90 is 6.01:1 failing WCAG AAA. Help:Link color identifies that the Vector 2022 skin uses #3366CC for link colour. It is a pain to find a colour that contrasts sufficiently with #3366CC to pass WCAG AA, and none will pass WCAG AAA (neither #000 nor #FFF do). To pass WCAG AA whilst retaining the same green it needs to be at least #E4EEE4. That is nearly grey. Alternatively, if the link text can be changed to a higher weight (i.e. bold), then that solves the accessibility issue for any of the colours at WCAG AA and for #E4EEE4 at WCAG AAA.

The borders are different colours. #006622 for the GA icon border and #107020 for the GA tab border. There shouldn't be an accessibility issue here though. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude, does this mean that a lighter fill color is worse contrast with the links? I would have thought that a substantially lighter fill color would make it easier to see the links. (After all, the links would be easier to read on a white background.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a quick little comparison:

Comparison

Old	Icon
WP:GA Other WT:GAN	WP:GA Other WT:GAN

Is that second one actually worse? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Lighter
#E4EEE4

Icon fill
#DED

No, the lighter fill is better. But, with the Vector 2022 skin, neither colour contrasts enough to meet WCAG AA. Though, #DED is close (4.43:1), the minimum would be #E4EEE4 (4.51:1). If the link text can be made bold, then #DED is just fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Bold text takes up more width, which is worse for people on narrow screens or with large font sizes. The two colors you mention look pretty similar, and the lighter one is obviously closer to the icon than what we've got:

Shall we swap in that lighter color? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the lighter colour works for me. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

+1 for enforcing accessibility requirements. Thanks, Mr rnddude! —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I have made the change as discussed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a greener colour that still meets accessibility requirements? Sorry if this was addressed above, it could be double Dutch for all I understand of it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That probably depends on whether you're willing to change the color of the links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

'Greenest' colour
#ABFFAB

Saturated #DED match
#DFD

Nearest #DED match
#DDF1DD

I'm no master of colour – as this comment will demonstrate – but I've gone and 'shopped around' on a colour palette for 'greener' colours that still meet WCAG AA accessibility. To get #E4EEE4 I had increased red (R) and blue (B) values, whilst retaining the same green (G) value (RGB). I hadn't initially applied the reverse solution – I assumed this would make it worse – but this alternate approach finds #DDF1DD as the nearest match for #DED with a 4.52:1 contrast for #36C links. Raising G to its limit gives #DFD also improving contrast to 4.96:1. Finally, keeping G at 255, and reducing R&B till I hit the WCAG AA threshold gives #ABFFAB at 4.5:1 exactly for the 'greenest' colour.

I think #DDF1DD is a touch closer to the icon fill than #E4EEE4. #DFD is a slightly more saturated, brighter version of that and also has the highest accessibility score. #ABFFAB is the nearest match to #90EE90 (the original colour), but carries the original problem of being too distinct from the GA icon fill. Every colour discussed in this thread has the same hue. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

One more brief comment: if #DDF1DD isn't 'green' enough and/or #ABFFAB is too 'green' or too 'bright', there may be a happy medium that I can find between them. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel like the "greenest" color is a good match for the icon colors, but whatever other people prefer will be fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

What can I do to speed up the nomination process?

I recently nominated the Tupolev Tu-22M as a good article but no one has reviewed it. Is there anything that i can do to speed up the process? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Usually articles take a few weeks to a few months to be picked up. Reviewing is a volunteer process. In general, the way to speed things up is to review other articles so that yours is more prominent, but obviously that's a very indirect and very diluted effect. There are review circles (see the navigation tabs above), which you could look into, although note that that is up to the discretion of the coordinator. CMD (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Crusading_movement/GA4

This review Talk:Crusading_movement/GA4 by Borsoka would appear to be in bad faith.

Firstly this editor would appear to be WP:INVOLVED as any review to the history and talk would indicate. Secondly, as a regular visitor to the GA review page page they would be aware that this article was listed for review since July and appear to have waited 3 months for it to get to the head of the queue before failing. Thirdly, the taking of an option to quick fail rather a proper view indicates an unwillingness to give any chance to improve the article. Lastly, the rationale for failing is largely spurious. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Borsoka Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

More unkind pushing, as apparently evidenced in the GA reassessment? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 17:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @2601AC47, excuse me but I am unclear by what you mean by this? Can you elaborate please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This. And still not resolved after 6 months, was it? I'd next try dispute resolution, but frankly, this is beyond petty, and one you two know a whole lot better about. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: I have several times reminded you during the last 4 or 5 years that close paraphrasing and copyright violations are very serious issues and "should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues." Please also read Wikipedia:GAFAIL. Borsoka (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's frustrating enough. You did check every reference for copyright violations with the Copyvio Detector, correct? And how many violations have you found? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not use Copyvio Detector. I compared texts with the cited sources. Two of the copyvios are mentioned in the review and I think there are at least two more cases although I did not review the full article:

• In theological terms, the movement merged ideas of Old Testament wars, that were believed to have been instigated and assisted by God, with New Testament ideas of forming personal relationships with Christ.

• "In theological terms, crusading was couched in both Old and New Testament thought. Whereas crusades were presented as parallels to the wars fought by the people of Israel in the Old Testament with the help and on the instigation of God, the spirituality of the indiviual crusader was based on New Testament theology and seen in Christocentric terms as forming a personal relationship with Christ." (Maier, Christoph T. (2006). "Ideology". In Murray, Alan V. (ed.). D–J. The Crusades: An Encyclopedia. Vol. II. ABC-CLIO. pp. 627–631 (on p. 627). ISBN 978-1-57607-862-4.)

• One of the objectives of the Crusades was to free the Holy Sepulchre from Muslim control.

• ".... the pope preached them [those who were present at Clermont] a sermon in which he called on Frankish knights to vow to march to the East with the twin aims of freeing Christians from the yoke of Islamic rule and liberating the tomb of Christ, the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, from Muslim control." (Riley-Smith, Jonathan (2002) [1999]. "The Crusading Movement and Historians". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan (ed.). The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–14 (on page 1). ISBN 978-0-1928-0312-2.

• The Latin settlements did not easily fit to the model of a colony.

• "These do not fit the Latin settlements in the Levant before 1291." (Phillips, Jonathan (1995). "The Latin East, 1098-1291". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan (ed.). The Oxford Illustrated History of The Crusades. Oxford University Press. pp. 112–140 (on page 112). ISBN 978-0-19-285428-5.)

• The movement enabled the papacy to consolidate its leadership of the Latin church.

• "The collective identity of the Latin Church was consolidated under papal leadership." (Davies, Norman (1997). Europe: A History. Pimlico. p. 359. ISBN 978-0-7126-6633-6.)

Borsoka (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

A few thoughts here. Firstly, given Borsoka's previous involvement with this article (not only did they initiate the Good Article Reassessment this year, but they are the second biggest contributor by both edit count and authorship), and given their previous disputes with the nominator (both Borsoka and Norfolkbigfish have started ANI discussions about the other's behaviour on this article this year [8], [9], [10]), their taking on this review seems to be an obviously Bad Idea which was clearly going to provoke drama. Secondly, when the GAR was closed in May, the closing statement said in part that the article may be renominated for GA status when involved editors are in agreement all copyvio has been removed. Clearly all involved editors are not in agreement that all the copyvio issues have been addressed, and Norfolkbigfish would have been wise to check in with Borsoka before nominating. (Thirdly, I see above mention of Earwig's Copyvio Detector: this is exactly the kind of article which automated copyvio detecting tools are not good at dealing with. See my essay WP:NOTEARWIG for further discussion). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we could ask someone else to review the copyvio concerns. A third opinion can be useful, especially when editors have very different personal ideas about where something falls on the plagiarism-to-unverifiable spectrum. Diannaa is awesome with this sort of thing, but may be busy at the moment. Perhaps Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the right place to request help? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to help with this, or even to read this discussion. Diannaa (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Borsoka is a significant contributor to the article, and as such has breached WP:GAN/I#R2—the review is void. I suggest that they request G7 speedy deletion of the review and so return it to the GAN queue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Some of these I could see as issues but others there are only so many ways one can say the same thing without distorting what the source is saying. It's not like "free from muslim control" is creative phrasing, and it's not even that direct here. How is that one an issue and not an acceptable paraphrase of the source? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Further the supposed GA3 concern is more of an FA issue than a GA issue. This is certainly broad enough for GA, which does not require FA level comprehensiveness, just all the major aspects. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am not a contributor to the article that was created by a split from Crusades. No text in the article was written by myself. Taking into account the nominator's problematic approach to copyvio I would be careful. Borsoka (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't added any actual text but you have edited it 94 times and engaged repeatedly in verification / checking citations which I would count as a "significant contribution". PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• The article was created through a split on 4 October 2020, but xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/ counts edits from 17 December 2003. Yes, I used to be a major contributor to Crusades, but this article does not contain text from me. If a review is a significant contribution how could we participate in the peer reviews, GANs and FACs of the same articles? Borsoka (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  It counts since 2003 because it was a redirect to the Crusades article, from which there are six more or less meaningless maintenance edits prior to the split. Those are a drop in the bucket, and by edit count you are the most second most significant editor from 2022 to 2024. Peer reviews can be done by involved editors, but since GANs are done by one person it is slightly different. If you had commented on the GAN or the talk page of the article expressing your concerns that the issues hadn't been fixed after the nomination was started that would have been another thing.

  Some of the issues raised here are fair, but with others I don't understand how one could reasonably be expected to rewrite them to be less close without distorting the facts. Basic facts are not CLOP, only extended or creative phrasing. If the source says [thing] happened in 1995 in France that is a basic fact, and In France in 1995 [blank] happened is little different. Some are more FA-level issues. I think the article may have some remaining structural issues from having been based so heavily on encyclopedia articles for a broad topic, even though those have since been removed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• I am sure I did not add text to this article. Just a question: Norfolkbigfish took me to ANI twice after I opposed their nominations and this fact is raised as an obstacle of my review. Do we really want to urge editors who want to get rid of reviewers to take them to ANI? Borsoka (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I feel that when an editor takes strong issue to a particular article at review, it's best for a third party to do any follow-up reviews so as to look at it with a fresh perspective. The same editor reviewing the same article multiple times doesn't do anything for the process, and no one person should be the arbiter of whether an article meets GA or FA criteria. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Did the article contain more than one cases of close paraphrasing or copyvio, or not? If yes, WP:GAFAIL2 was to be applied. I again emphasise that the nominator has been reminded copyvio by multiple editors for years. Please remember that I initiated the GAR process, not decided it. The nominator's blatant plagiarism was the main reason of the article's delisting. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• See the first, third and fourth example. You could easily rephrase them. Borsoka (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  How would you rephrase three in a way that is meaningfully less close to the original text than it is now without distorting the meaning? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

After I raised the issue, Norfolkbigfish completed the task, at least they think so. Borsoka (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• It is worth remembering the principle that GAN is generally an individual process, and so while reviews should follow community principles, GANs remain a two-way discussion are not the same as review processes involving more of the community, or a substitute for content development and dispute processes.
  This article has gone through two community review processes already this year, the FAC and the GAR, which saw wider (albeit overlapping) involvement. No GAN is going to produce equivalent scrutiny for copyvio, an item raised in the FAC and GAR, and again in later talkpage discussions (although these discussions were very limited in length). GAN is not equipped to handle this issue, which should be discussed in the talkpage or other dispute resolution forums.
  As Caeciliusinhorto says, per the GAR, while perhaps not strictly necessary Norfolkbigfish likely should have followed up with other participants of the community processes. At the same time, Norfolkbigfish has clearly tried to raise further discussion on the talkpage following the community discussions, and received little participation. Again, while it is not strictly necessary to participate in talkpage discussions, it is suboptimal to not participate in such discussions and yet jump onto the later open GAN with issues that could have been mentioned in the talkpage.
  For the non-copyvio issues raised, Borsoka's interpretations of 3a and 3b seem more FA-level than GA-level. Others should, like the copyvio, would be best addressed through a talkpage discussion or other process before a GAN. CMD (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Outsider view: Boroska is weakening the case for a quickfail rather than strengthening it with some of these criticisms. The kind of grammar failures that cause a quickfail are much more severe than the stuff nitpicked - when to hyphenate 16th century is an unimportant quibble, capable of being handled in a review with "please check for conformance to MOS:HYPHEN, I've fixed a sample one for you here" or the like. And frankly this kind of minor error is fine even in a passed GA. Similarly, while I actually agree with Boroska that some of these details look cuttable and I would probably not include them myself, I've seen reviewers ask in good faith for precisely this kind of extra detail to be added involving which historian says this, etc. It's not an open-and-shut case, but rather one where there clearly exists conflicting opinions. Perhaps the article should still be quickfailed on the content grounds, but the prose / grammar points picked don't give cause for confidence that a quickfail is merited here. SnowFire (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • GACR1b does not include the main MOS page, of which MOS:HYPHEN is one part, so the page doesn't have to comply with it – except to the extent that punctuation could be considered inconsistent with the article being well-written and using correct grammar. My own rule of thumb is to fix simple problems (e.g., improper hyphenation) that are faster to fix than to explain, but for those larger problems, I like your approach of "I've fixed a sample one for you here". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Again, hyphen is only one of the dozen cases of typos. Typos of this scale are clear indication of poor editing. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• What about WP:GAFAIL2? After four years of repeated suggestions, without a full review more than one cases of blatant plagiarism were detected. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• The nominator's blatant plagiarism was raised by myself during FAC and GAR procedure, and my concerns were accepted by other reviewers as well. I think instead of proposing the nominator to initiate a new GAN for this article, we should urge them to clean from plagiarism other articles that they heavily edited (I refer specifically to the Angevin kings of England, House of Plantagenet, and House of Lancaster). Unfortunatelly, "Norfolkbigfish's" so called FAs and GAs are a ticking bombs from this perspective. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Some shared proper nouns and common turns of phrase does not equate to plagarism. I admittedly don't have all the context here, but this just reads more like a personal dispute with Norfolkbigfish rather than an issue of article quality. "Blatant plagarism", "so-called FAs and GAs"? Come on, you are both talented editors, and this is clearly wasting time that both you and Norfolk could be using to improve articles that need it. Borsoka, I would suggest that you just let these articles be at this point; no matter the intention, embarking on a crusade of your own against them isn't an effective way to alleviate copyright concerns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, I have to disagree with this take. They were merely so-called GAs and FAs, as they were each shown to clearly not meet their respective criteria, in large part due to the massive plagiarism used to write them. If I can credit Norfolkbigfish with learning their lesson, they've been dragging their heels in doing so. There's one editor really holding up the betterment of this article, and it's not Borsoka. Remsense ‥ 论 02:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• If there is still "blatant plagiarism" and you can prove it, then quickfail it on those grounds and don't mention the others. The hyphenation of 16th century is not a quickfail criteria nor alarming to see in an article - it doesn't impede understanding at all (the intended sense is almost always obvious) and it's something easy for people to get wrong who know the rule. Same with stuff like in-text citing which historian believes a particular point - that's cause for a gentle optional suggestion during a full review, perhaps, not a quickfail. I hestitate to cite TVTropes, but see Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking - citing jaywalking causes me to think that this must mean your confidence in the murder accusation must not be very strong. SnowFire (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  These are actionable points that should be improved regardless, no? Perhaps you could say they should've been appended below instead of listed as failures of the criteria, but I think if they were just ignored entirely that would create a potential argument that Borsoka was being intentionally narrow minded in their review. Remsense ‥ 论 02:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's a point for improvement but Borsoka marked the article as failing that specific criteria over a hyphen. Not just noting it, but marking it as having entirely failed that aspect of the GAC, over a hyphen. That is a problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Please read my review. The hypen is one of the several cases of typos. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Borsoka: Allow me to be very blunt since apparently the point is not getting across: even if every single hyphen was incorrect, that would still not be cause for a GA quickfail. It might not even be bad enough to fail a full review even if unfixed. It is an exceptionally minor point where if you really felt strongly about it, then WP:SOFIXIT and just change it yourself rather than discuss it. If you are failing other nominations elsewhere because of hyphenation issues, then you need to stop doing that, because you are imposing a criteria way higher than what GA is seen as elsewhere. (And if you're about to say that you didn't quickfail it because of the hyphen, you did it because of the alleged plagiarism... then see my earlier comment! Then don't mention this at all then!) Same with your other prose concerns, by and large. SnowFire (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  @SnowFire, while we're being blunt, they specifically said typo issues were in no way limited to hyphenation. It is not productive to pretend that that is what they're saying. Remsense ‥ 论 03:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, usually I fix typos myself during GA reviews and I have completed dozens of them. However, if three relatively short sections of an article contain nearly a dozen of typos, it is a clear indication that the article does not meet GA1a either (in addition to further criteria). Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• @Remsense: The above comment still applies! I've looked at the article, and the alleged typos are nowhere near bad enough for there to be a quickfail here. If you think they are, then you're imposing too high a standard too. GAN isn't supposed to be all hugs, but it's not some sort of hazing test either.
• Look, here's a case that has come up before: a well-meaning and scholarly editor for whom English is a second language nominates an article. It is very well sourced, but the English is awkward and the prose isn't sterling quality. Even in these cases, this is generally cause for a reviewer who helps point out issues and does a full review, hopeful of encouraging more high-quality content (even if the English is stilted). But at least there, I'd understand a quickfail, especially if the English is truly problematic enough. There's a balance to be struck between being inviting but potentially taxing on the reviewer's time for pointing out issues, and saying "nah you gotta get it better first." The Crusading Movement article is nowhere near that category of merely being borderline on English. GA criteria is not about typos, not even multiple typos. (And as a side note, I've had articles I've quadruple-checked for typos still have a reviewer find a stray typo or two. It's cause for a quick edit or a gentle comment at reviewtime. That's it.) SnowFire (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• @Borsoka: If you don't do this elsewhere then good, but you shouldn't have done it on this article either. The alleged typo problems were not evidence of a quick fail being merited. While too low standards are the more obvious problem, too high standards are still a problem. I'm not even sold your last complaint in that paragraph is even a problem - calling it a "a positive" reads perfectly fine to me. It's nitpicking where you'd rather phrase it how you'd write it rather than how Norfolk would write it, and this applies to some of your other complaints in your quickfail as well. But this is a collaborative project, which means it won't always be written as any one editor prefers. Look, I have no idea whether Norfolk's claims of you being unfairly on their case are correct, but this kind of hard-pressing over petty stuff is helping his case, not yours. SnowFire (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• We do not agree on this specific issue: dozens of typos are clear indication of poor editing skills. For instance, I am not a native English speaker, so I always seek assistance at the Guild of copyeditors before nominating an article to save time for reviewers. Norfolkbigfish should also seek assistance to improve their articles before nominating them. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Some shared proper nouns and common turns? I started to review Angevin kings of England. I found two cases of plagiarism at the very beginning of the article (and several cases of unverified claims). Thus, I opened the reassessment process. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  There is something of an issue with the second but is the first one "blatant plagiarism"? How would you write the first instance without distorting the meaning, in a way that is any less close than the first. "who were also" is not creative phrasing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Easily: "who also ruled the County of Anjou in France". Please remember, I only compared the first two sections with the cited works and I soon found two cases of blatant plagiarism (yes, blatant). Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say that is less desirable given that that it flows better as a description of their title, both king and count. "count of Anjou" is a straightforward job description - even if one thought the other was more clear, saying that someone is the count of [blank] is plagiarism? Really? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• For those unaware, some of the personal context here no doubt arises from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Middle Ages/archive1, which ended with the article, very largely rewritten by Borsoka, being delisted as it was held a new FAC would be needed, rather than just an FAR. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Johnbod, if you think I am driven by a vendetta please take me to ANI. I am not surprised that you assume bad faith about other editors: you were a co-nominator to the FA version of Middle Ages that I reviewed, finding several cases of unverified claims and marginal PoVs and you did everything to prevent me from reviewing the article (I refer to this and this huge archives). Interestingly, you did not mention the same concern in connection with Norfolkbigfish during the FAR, although you knew that they had taken me to ANI twice for detecting plagiarism during the FAC and GAR of Crusading movement. Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To assume bad faith is to assume that you are deliberately and intentionally trying to hurt Wikipedia. AGF is perfectly compatible with seeing an opportunity to help Wikipedia while simultaneously trying to hurt someone else – say, an editor whose contributions someone believes are net harmful, and that Wikipedia would be better off if they could be run off or blocked.

To assume good faith is to assume the editor is trying to help Wikipedia, including those cases in which their efforts are so inept or misguided that they cause enormous problems.

I think the message to you, from this thread, is: If someone nominates an article, and you have any reason to believe that their response to your review could sound like "Borsoka hates me and is seeking revenge!" – even if the nom is 100% completely, provably wrong – then you, personally, should not be the person to fail the article. Let someone else fail it. We might then get a complaint about how the other reviewer did everything wrong, but we can handle that much more quickly and easily than a complaint based on the perception (again: rightly or wrongly) that you are attacking the nom instead of the article. I advise you to stay away from noms with whom you remember (or ought to remember) being involved in any significant disputes. There are enough GA noms out there that you can surely find some to review that don't risk people claiming that you're personally antagonizing them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, if I want to get rid of a reviewer, I should take them to ANI. This is what you are suggesting. Or if I was taken to ANI, I must follow the rules of IBAN or TBAN voluntarily? Nice new world. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Please take also into account that I was taken to ANI by Norfolkbigfish because I detected dozens of cases of plagiarism. Do you really want to suggest that those who detect cases of plagiarism are to be taken to ANI to prevent them from reviewing the article? Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, that is exactly what is being said above. In the unlikely situation of someone is weaponizing disputes to get favored reviewers, then get them banned at ANI. But given the obvious bad blood here between you two, if a failure needs to come down, it is better if it comes from an unimpeachable, uninvolved source. SnowFire (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

OK. So because Norfolkbigfish has taken me to ANI several times for my reviews detecting their plagiarism, and original research, I am the one who should stay aside? Are you sure this is the best approach to improve WP? Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

To say so again: yes. That's what you've been told several times now. This isn't a principle made up just for you, it's used elsewhere in real-life all the time. You aren't an unbiased source even if you were 100% right about everything in your previous disputes and even if your final conclusion matches up with what a fresh set of eyes would say. Let the fresh set of eyes handle it. SnowFire (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This would set a dangerous precedent: if I took you to ANI stating that you are jeopardising our community's interest by protecting an editor with well documented disruptive history, you could not criticise my acts in the future? I think a TBAN for Norfolkbigfish is the only logical solution. They have been almost exclusively editing this article for years but they have been unable to improve it significantly because cases of plagiarism and original research could still be detected. Norfolkbigfish could concentrate on "his" other articles, because I did not need more than half an hour to find new cases of plagiarism and unverified claims in one of them, so they quite probably still represent a serious legal risk to our community. I do not want to edit the Crusading article and the Crusades article for at least two years which is a voluntary TBAN. Borsoka (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

you could not criticise my acts in the future Editors here have suggested you voice these concerns on a review for this article, just not on one that you wield the big stick for. Could you outline what would be lost from pursuing such an approach? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

OK. I understand. What about my suggestion? Borsoka (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If your suggestion is that you pursue sanctions such as a TBAN, then my suggestion is that you stop being aggressive.

In the meantime, if you'd like to find some editors who are very experienced with what you call "a serious legal risk to our community", then please list the article at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems noticeboard. There are instructions on that page for how to list an article and a list of actions that they would consider helpful.

If you do this with a sincere resolution to accept their judgement, even if it doesn't match yours (it's obvious to me, anyway, that you aren't a licensed attorney with a specialty in copyright law), then we'll likely get this cleaned up to the extent that is actually required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• (de-indent) Borsoka, if we got into a huge dispute, then of course we could criticize each other's activities, but no, I probably wouldn't review your GA noms, and you shouldn't review mine. Again, this is not some rule we made up just for you. It's extremely common and the fact you haven't run into this norm before is strange, but rest assured, this is not new. I recommend accepting this information cheerfully as one of today's lucky 10,000, but people who have beefs shouldn't also rule on those beefs. It's the exact same reason that someone closing a consensus discussion (like an AFD, a RM, etc.) ideally shouldn't be someone known to have feuded with the nominator. Or why a police officer probably doesn't arrest their ex-wife during a dispute unless there's truly no other choice. SnowFire (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • And more positively... I hesitate to bring this up... but let's suppose for the sake of argument you're right that there are still major plagiarism problems. You can probably torpedo a GA nomination just fine without being the reviewer. Just cleanup-tag the article with your complaints and put them back in if they're not addressed to your satisfaction. Nobody is going to pass an article for GA if there are cleanup tags on it. (But please be right if you go forward with this.) SnowFire (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    • OK, those who will review this article will also take responsibility for Norfolkbigfish's edits. Good luck. Borsoka (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Sounds good to me. Norfolkbigfish, when you believe all issues have been resolved, feel free to ping me and I'll review it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

        All yours @AirshipJungleman29, and thank you. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

        @Borsoka, as @AirshipJungleman29 suggests above please can you request a G7 speedy deletion of the review and so return it to the GAN queue. Thank you. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

        Given there are two large contributors, I'm not sure a G7 would be approved. I've put the article back in the queue normally for now. CMD (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)