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 .

Talk:Squirtle/GA1[edit]

My apologies if I'm not allowed to do this, but shouldn't the reviewer have asked for a new reviewer instead of failing it? Spinixster (trout me!) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not best practice. If a reviewer opens a review page and does not want to proceed, and no actual review has happened, they can request that the page be deleted which allows for a new page to be created. You could request that. Otherwise, we can reset the nomination date for the new review to the original one. CMD (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see BlueMoonset has already done this. CMD (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just adjusted the close on the review page to be a withdrawn reviewer rather than a failure in addition to updating the article talk page to restore the nomination's seniority and remove the improper "FailedGA". Thank you, Spinixster, for bringing this to our attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The review was odd Talk:Squirtle/GA2. 2001:4455:36D:9100:41E3:8099:FF76:2CC7 (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, seems like no spot check was done. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dia (film)/GA1[edit]

I've failed this nomination, but the bot didn't seem to notify the nominator that it's a fail nor did it remove the GAN from WP:GAC. Something's off. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see everything worked correctly -- the nominator was notified and the GAN was removed from the main page. The bot runs every twenty minutes and takes about eight or ten minutes to run so in the worst case you could be waiting thirty minutes after you complete a fail or pass for the bot to do its job. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I guess I was just a little impatient. Thanks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest vs. Highest priority[edit]

Is there any longer a distinction between these two (now that nominations are simply sorted by date), except that the "Highest priority" box seems to have fewer entries? If not, should we merge the two boxes together? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are slightly different (the fifth entry currently showing for me is Blackpink for the oldest unreviewed noms, and William L. Keleher for the most urgent). Whether they are sufficiently different for it to be valuable to have two separate lists is another matter: currently four of the five entries are the same. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChristieBot crashing on Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)[edit]

ChristieBot is unable to transclude the GA review to Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present), which is semi-protected. As a result it's been crashing every run trying to do so, and so has not been updating the main GAN page. Per WP:UAL it seems as though ChristieBot should have the extended-confirmed permission which would allow it to edit this page, but it can't. I'm about to go to work and so don't want to edit the code since I won't be around to see if it works, but if someone could either give the bot the permission, if that can be done without going through an approval process, or manually transclude the GA review, that should fix it. The former is the preferable fix if it can be done quickly since that way it would be definite that that's what the problem is -- UAL does seem to say bots automatically have the permission so I suppose the problem could be due to something else. Anyway, thanks for any help with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having queried the interface directly it seems the bot may have this permission but is missing something else. I've posted to ANI to ask for further help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a bug in the library. I've added a workaround but the transclusions may not work properly right away; I'll monitor them and fix any that fail manually until it is working reliably. It is not going to be possible for the bot to transclude reviews for protected pages; those will always have to be done manually. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a rare enough occurrence. Is there somewhere the bot dumps an error message noting the need for manual intervention we could look at? CMD (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bot currently has a couple of different ways of handling errors. Errors that are going to cause the same problem over and over again (e.g. it can't parse a GAN template because the nominator has created it manually and messed up the parameters) prevent it from adding that nomination to the GAN page, so it reports those in a section at the end of WP:GAN. That's not suitable here, because this is a one-time error: once the bot has tried to transclude the review it never tries again. The bot also writes some errors to User talk:ChristieBot/Bug messages, which is intended more for my use -- it tracks unexpected events so I can figure out if there are things I can do to make the bot more reliable. I could have the bot write to that page, but I don't think it would be worth anyone watching it for this super-rare event -- this is the only time it's occurred in the last year and a half. I could have the bot leave a message here on the GAN talk page if that would be OK? The other notifications the bot leaves will still work -- the talk page messages, for example. At the moment there is some activity around the bug, so it might be the case that the people who maintain the library will fix it in which case it will just start working again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Return and Query[edit]

@WP:GAR coordinators: Hi all, hope that you're doing well. After some (extensive) time away I've been getting back into the swing of things (and sorting through my many notifications). I noticed I was rather fairly delisted for inactivity. Not sure that we have any policy on re-activation/addition; shall I run again for approval, or what is the thought? Thanks! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to see you back Iazyges. I don't think we have any rules on GAR coordinating, so I'll just revert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No objections on my part. Welcome back. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair to me. Apologies for my lack of activity the last week or so, I have been recovering from the flu myself. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]