Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Good article nominations

WT:GAN

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.

See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32

GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Criteria: 1, 2, 3, 4

Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

GA help: 1, 2

Nominations/Instructions: 1

Search archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Assist

I went and did a part of a GA assessment of Aoi Koga earlier today, can someone used to the GA process check if it is good? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaBetaGamma, you can list this on the backlog drive page as well, to increase the likelihood someone picks it up soon. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 nominations

We're now half way through the year 2024, but there are still over a dozen nominations from 2023 that never got reviewed. If you're not sure what to work on, consider reviewing one of these:

McLaren MCL60 (start)
Jews in the civil rights movement (nom)
Infant school (start)
Murali Vijay (start)
Barry Sheene (start)
2022 North Lanarkshire Council election (nom)
Josef Hoop (nom)
Rodolfo Calle (start)
King Manor (start)
Dual-threat quarterback (start)
Satti Majid (start)
Mafeje affair (start)
Makwerekwere (start)
September 1983 Laws (start)

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

The original review for 2022 City of Edinburgh Council election was messed up by a now blocked editor. The nomination was passed earlier today but, when updating this page, the bot hasn't recorded it as my 12th GA. Is there a way to correct that? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA numbers are usually updated overnight, but there have been a couple of discrepancies recently so I just ran the update manually. The database now shows it as a pass, so the next time the GAN page updates your numbers should be up to date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Godzilla Minus One/GA1

@Broc and Eiga-Kevin2: Hi, I was about to nominate this newly-promoted GA for WP:DYK and found an interesting factoid in the Critical response subsection, until I spotted close paraphrasing on a few texts in that section:

Article	Source
Tokyo-based film critic and journalist Mark Schilling wrote that Japanese critics frequently rebuke the films of writer-director Takashi Yamazaki, partly because "most are left-leaning" and view a few of his films, most notably the war drama The Eternal Zero (2013), as "nationalistic if not outright jingoistic". Schilling also mentioned that critic and historian Inuhiko Yomota was critical of Godzilla Minus One, calling it "dangerous".	Japanese critics, though, have long been hard on Yamazaki, one reason being that most are left-leaning and they see some of his films, especially his 2013 action drama “The Eternal Zero,” about WWII tokkōtai (kamikaze) pilots and based on a novel by rightist author Naoki Hyakuta, as nationalistic if not outright jingoistic. Even “Godzilla Minus One,” in which a plucky band of civilians, including a disgraced former tokkōtai pilot, band together to save Japan from Godzilla, was called a “dangerous movie” by essayist and film historian Inuhiko Yomota in a Facebook post.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, American critics praised its drama, low-budgeted visual effects, and usage of kaiju as a metaphor for social commentary, with many favoring it over recent Hollywood productions.	U.S. critics have unanimously praised the film for the remarkable visual mileage Yamazaki got out of the project’s relatively small budget, as well as the story’s moving human drama and canonical use of the kaiju as a metaphor for social critique. [...] Godzilla Minus One seems to be earning especially favorable comparisons to Hollywood’s recent output of franchise sequels —
According to Dana Stevens, Ryunosuke Kamiki's performance is memorable because of his ability to convey the protagonist's vulnerability and emotional distress.	Kamiki’s anguished, vulnerable performance is one crucial part of what makes this protagonist so memorable,

Broc, were you able to examine thoroughly the prose for close paraphrasing issues? Because there could be more in this section and elsewhere. The examples above are just from English-language sources, I think the Japanese ones should be examined further. If it turned out that the article contains even more CLOP issues, then it may need to undergo a GA reassessment. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy thanks for pointing it out. I did run Earwig while doing the GA review and did not find major copyvio issues.

Regarding the close paraphrasing you pointed out here:

For the first sentence, I don't see the substantial similarity between the left and right column. The article uses direct quotes when needed and provides attribution to the author in-text.

The other two sentences also provide clear attribution, in-text ("according to...") and with an in-line reference. However, I agree that they look rather similar to the original and could use direct quotes instead.

Per WP:CLOP, Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism however, in all three cases you raised there is clear in-text attribution. If these are the only copyright issues, I don't see the need for GA reassessment. Broc (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Broc: Ah, okay. I thought the texts and those of the sources looked nearly identical in structure and flow; missed that one CLOP policy. And I assume you checked the Japanese sources as well? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy all I did was reading the policy, don't consider me a copyright expert. If you think the issue needs expert judgment, please raise it at WP:CP.

I did check a few Japanese sources as spot check; however, I don't speak Japanese myself, and the machine translation is often unreliable. Broc (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I apologize for this inconvenience. I think that'll be all. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk on chat board about quick passes by relatively new editor

There is an ongoing chat about a few GA reviews that basic contain no recommendations for improvements....quick flyby passes if you will. I thought I would bring this up in a neutral manor focused on content before someone else does so in a more aggressive tone towards this good faith editor. The tone in the chat is very aggressive as if there's something else going on. @PearlyGigs:

Both the examples below do not seem egregious in passing of in my view....as in nothing outrageous outstanding.

Moxy🍁 01:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moxy. Thanks for the ping. I'm not sure what you mean by a chat board, unless it's the Taj Mahal topic above. I'm happy to have any of my reviews reconsidered as long as the feedback is constructive. Thanks again. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PearlyGigs, these reviews are shorter than we tend to see, hence why they may appear to be flyby passes, although they are not a checklist so they clear that bar. One issue in both is that a reviewer should not just say "no evidence of original research or copyright issues", they are required to specific what sources were spotchecked to determine this. One mentions that most sources were inaccessible, which is fine, but it does imply there were one or two which could be checked. CMD (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CMD. In the first four reviews I did, including Meligalas and Talbot, I wasn't sure about how to report the findings and I followed what I saw in other reviews. I did check some citations at the time but didn't record them because other people don't. After Mike did the Norman Hunter review for me, however, I realised that the spot-checks need to be itemised and I've been doing that since. In fact, I've just completed the sample at Talk:Suleiman of Germiyan/GA1. Hope this is okay. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks are relatively new compared to other requirements, and so are still sometimes forgotten. That example is great, but note the spotchecks are also to check for plagiarism in addition to verification. CMD (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but plagiarism stands out. Verification is not always so easy to determine. PearlyGigs (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]