Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Main

Criteria

Instructions

Nominations

FAQ

Backlog drives

Mentorship

Review circles

Discussion

Reassessment

Report

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 FAQ above 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.

To help centralize 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, 33, 34, 35

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 Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Wikipedia proposals WikiProjects and collaborations When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

With the backlog of unreviewed GANs increasing (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Is it time for quid pro quo?), should we restrict nominations displayed on the GAN page to those meeting certain criteria? 11:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: some nominations will not be displayed on the GAN page if the backlog is high, the nominator has a low ratio of reviews to GAs, the nominator has more than one nomination waiting, and the nominator has more than some minimum number of GAs total. Support comments for this proposal may indicate a preference for these numbers that differs from the recommended numbers given in this RfC (see example !vote below). The RfC will only pass if there are not only enough supports, but there is consensus for each of the three numbers that must be agreed on. Initial recommendations for those numbers are included in this RfC but commenters may choose to support other values for those numbers as they see fit.

The nominations to display on WP:GAN will be determined as follows.

• If the total number of nominated GANs (including ones already under review) is less than or equal to 825 (MAX_BACKLOG), all GANs are displayed.
• Otherwise, any nomination for which any of the following statements are true is displayed:
  • The nomination is already under review
  • The nominator has at most 3 (MAX_GAS) promoted GAs
  • The nomination was made prior to RFC_IMPLEMENTED_DATE (the date on which this is implemented, if it passes)
  • The nominator has a review-to-GA ratio greater than or equal to 0.95 (MIN_RG_RATIO) (measured either over the whole history of GA reviews, or from RFC_IMPLEMENTED_DATE, whichever is most favourable). This ratio will be calculated to only include completed (promoted or failed) GAs and reviews; nominations and reviews in process will not be counted in the ratio. A GA that has later been demoted, or promoted to FA, will still count as a promoted GA for this purpose.
  • The nomination is the oldest nomination for that nominator.
• Any nomination not displayed per the rule above is a "deferrable" nomination; the other nominations are "visible" nominations.
  • If the number of visible nominations is greater than or equal to MAX_BACKLOG, no deferrable nominations are displayed.
  • Otherwise the oldest deferrable nominations are displayed, but only as many as necessary to have a total of MAX_BACKLOG nominations displayed.

The GAN page will include a comment indicating how many nominations are deferred but not listing the nominations themselves. The deferred nominations can still be reviewed by a user who visits the article's talk page and starts the review from that page, but there will be no link from the GAN page to those nominations. However, the nominations will still be listed in User:ChristieBot/SortableGANoms and User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting.

If you oppose this proposal regardless of how these values are chosen, simply oppose in the support/oppose section below. If you support this proposal, please indicate your preference for the three parameters: MAX_BACKLOG, MAX_GAS, and MIN_RG_RATIO. To the closer: if there is overall consensus for support, please indicate what level of these numbers has consensus. For the first two, a preference for a lower number indicates agreeement to any higher number as well; for the third parameter it is the reverse. For example, if someone supports 700, 0, and 1.0, they can be assumed to support 800, 2, and 0.95, as those are more lenient values for those parameters.

The value of these three parameters may change in the future; this would be determined by consensus discussions at WT:GAN.

Example !votes:

• Support. MAX_BACKLOG should be at least 750, MAX_GAS at least 2, and MIN_RG_RATIO should be no more than 1.0. Example user 1
• Support. Agree with the recommended numbers, except that MAX_GAs should be 3. Example user 2
• Oppose. I think this proposal is a bad idea, no matter which numbers are chosen. Example user 3

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think this proposal is such a blatantly bad idea that I have difficulty taking it as serious rather than parody, no matter which numbers are chosen. This is not what I want to see as a reviewer: When I choose what to review I do use the number of reviews by the nominator (preferring to review those with better ratios) but I want to see all the nominations so I can make an informed choice among them. And hiding nominations is also obviously a way of making the backlog worse (by making the hidden nominations semi-permanent contributors to the backlog) and therefore the opposite of an improvement to the backlog. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All nominations would still be visible in various other places, including the list that is sortable by number if reviews. —Kusma (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard"? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Article alerts is not quite that far out of sight, but indeed it has only 30 watchers and under 200 page direct views per month. —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a pretty decent emergency brake for when the backlog gets too large to handle (which does happen at some point) . There is no QPQ, just a throttle on advertising the noms of non-reviewers. I am not sure what the numbers should be, but the default suggestions could work. —Kusma (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So basically support. Note that the system is very flexible: if the allowed backlog size is high, it does nothing. If the allowed backlog size is low, it allows only one free nomination to people not participating in reviewing. So I wouldn't support setting the backlog size below 400 or so as that would be a bit like mandatory QPQ most of the time. —Kusma (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Nominations already take months to review, why would you make it that much worse by hiding nominations? Some people just aren't up to reviewing (it is difficult, y'know) and shouldn't have their reviews punished for such. This is basically saying "review GAs or nobody will review yours", which makes an existing problem worse. ^EF⁵ 18:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; I simply can't see any way that hiding nominations would be an effective way of achieving any kind of backlog reduction/increase in reviewing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per David Eppstein. The proposal is simply to mask the perceived problem, making matters worse not better. There are multiple issues. One is that Wikipedia depends on multiple skills: researching a topic; writing articles; copy-editing; creating illustrations and photographs; reviewing, and more. A queue forms anywhere that a formalised process depends on different activity rates. It is simply a category error to take a few arbitrary numbers or ratios and decide that some articles are to be hidden. That just conceals bits of the situation, without improving anything; indeed, if it makes things look all right, or drives editors away from one or another task, it makes the GAN process, and the encyclopedia, worse. Others have noted that different editors unsurprisingly have different skills and can do different jobs to the best of their various abilities: all teamwork is like that. This is a curate's egg of a proposal, no better than the previous attempt, and the sooner it is ditched, the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; There are far better ways to fix a backlog than hiding it. Not only would hiding nominations get rid of options for potential reviewers, but it would also demotivate if not outrage the impacted nominators. It's a generally unfair idea, and people shouldn't be forced to review articles unless they want their own nominations to be hidden. It's especially unfair to those who do not have the time to review articles themselves and those who do not speak English as a native/native-like language. It has the potential to lead to less quality content on Wikipedia, which is the opposite of what we want. 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 20:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I stupidly did not know anything about the GA backlogs or things about quid pro quo. Personal opinion, I would rather review whenever I liked, not forcing the reviewer with the hope of exchanging reviews, or receiving feedback for nomination. In fact, we have never shown multiple GAs on the Main Page, unlike DYK. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As awkward as it is to point this out to someone who's also opposing, @Dedhert.Jr, the proposal you're commenting on is not about QPQ. It concerns a proposal to hide certain nominations in the hope of nudging people to review in exchange for their nominations not being hidden. You may wish to re-read it and decide if your opposition still stands in its present form. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh now I get it and my bad. My opposition remains. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I saw someone point this out, but hiding nominations can literally reduce the odds of a reviewer finding a nomination they feel like reviewing. Hiding nominations just makes the process worse for both reviewers and nominators, and will 110% chase people off the process. What else does this "hiding nominations" exactly achieve, because I personally fail to see the positive side to this proposed change. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The extensive backlog including large contributions from a small number of users already chases people off the process. CMD (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose hiding nominations from the main list for any reason. As a reviewer I want to see all the options, and as a nominator it would be very disheartening to not have my nomination visible for an unknown period of time. I'm not against other measures to try reduce the backlog, including: limiting the number of active GA nominations a user can have at once; adding a quid pro quo requirement for experienced nominators (i.e. once you have 5 GAs yourself you should understand the process well enough to do one new review for every new nomination); and improving the backlog drive process. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adamstom97, can you clarify something in your comment? You say you might support "adding a quid pro requirement for experienced nominators"; that's a more stringent requirement than this RfC, which doesn't require QPQ, but which would sometimes hide nominations from nominators who don't QPQ. What is it about this RfC's approach that you dislike more than straight QPQ? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hiding nominations is my concern, I don't think it is a good idea and it would not solve the backlog problem anyway. I was just noting some ideas that could help. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposal does exactly the things you are asking for, only less forcefully. Hiding nominations is functionally equivalent to limiting the number of active nominations per user; QPQ is required for people who want to nominate a lot without being subject to hiding. —Kusma (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No it doesn't, it just hides certain nominations from the main list. It doesn't prevent someone from nominating too many articles at once, and it doesn't require experienced nominators to review an article for each nomination. What it does do is make the backlog look smaller than it actually is, make it more difficult for reviewers to see what articles have been nominated, and potentially discourage people from nominating GAs because they don't understand why their nominations aren't showing up on the list. It is also way more confusing. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Under a "one nomination at a time" rule, only one nomination is visible and people have to manually keep track of their nominations with some list in their user space and nominate the next one when the previous one has been reviewed. Under a "everything after the first nomination is hidden" rule, only one nomination is visible and the bot shows the next one when the previous one has been reviewed, while there is a public list of all nominations available. Under Mike's proposal, it is easier to see which articles are ready for GA status, as all of them get nominated instead of being hidden away in people's userspace. "Hiding" nominations in an official place is better than limiting the number of nominations, which also means that further nominations are artificially not included in the backlog, but without a way for potential reviewers to access them. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We need to institute mandatory reviewing: you cannot nominate an article without reviewing at least one other. Fewer people will bother to nominate articles, but so what? THe system will at least function properly, which this one does not at the moment. --TheUzbek (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am strongly opposed to explicit mandatory reviewing; depending on the implementation I might just stop participating and move to PR and FAC altogether. The proposal seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, hence my support. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think it's worth a try to see if it increases reviews. Sure I would be more in favour of mandatory QPQ, but I think this is much better than doing nothing. IAWW (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See politician's syllogism. —David Eppstein (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know for certain that it will improve things, hence the phrasing "worth a try", but I think it is sufficiently likely to improve things to be worth trying IAWW (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is hiding the backlog and creating a class of permanently-backlogged nominations likely to improve anything other than purely the cosmetic appearance of having a shorter listing? Where is the logic behind this? —David Eppstein (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting here that Mike Christie quoted this below and I largely agree with what he says. Though I think the logic could be expressed more simply, I'll avoid continuing the discussion here in the interests of not largely repeating what he says and to save us both some time. IAWW (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comments above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, have various concerns, but given the exclusion I requested above was included happy to accede to those in that conversation who supported this. There would likely need to be an adjustment after a certain period to convert the second R/G date into a moving one, to ensure that new participants are treated the same as older ones. The increased equity is laudable, and the idea that the current system includes all possible nominations is wrong. CMD (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've thought quite a bit about this, initially thinking I didn't really care because it seems meh. But, no, I don't like this proposal for three reasons. First, a minor reason: I already don't think we should have QPQ so this proposal's implicit punishment for not doing so seems unnecessary and wrong. Second, the major reason: hiding any nominations means potentially if not probably hiding some of the nominations people want to review. If there isn't a nominated article visible that a given individual user is inspired to review, chances are they're just not going to review anything rather than pick one they aren't interested in. Third, another minor reason: I don't see how it solves anything anyway. Once we hit the 'backlog mode' threshold we hide the number of articles we're above that threshold - so it constantly looks like we exist exactly at that threshold? How does that reduce the backlog? Looking like we're not over the threshold isn't going to set a flame below people to get reviewing... I don't get the idea behind it. Kingsif (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not actually sure how bad hiding some of the nominations would be. Imagine hiding all but one of Epicgenius' NYC buildings, all but one of Gerda's Bach cantatas and all but one of Beanie's football players. Does this really make it harder to find something you'd like to review? —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Funnily enough, I had Sammi's radio stations in mind - I'll review most anything, but some of those radio station articles look and are more fun to tackle than others. Kingsif (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, exactly - one radio station or NYC building or any other thing is not necessarily equivalent to another. Hiding them just makes life more annoying for those of us who are willing to review these. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The radio stations wouldn't actually be hidden under the proposal. Anyway, currently, if any one user (no matter whether they are doing reviews or not) nominates more than 20 articles, the excess already gets hidden. It looks to me as if people prefer staying under the limit to seeing their noms hidden (so this rarely happens). —Kusma (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're missing our point, which is that one article from one person is not necessarily equivalent to another article from the same nominator, whoever the nominator is and whatever the topic area is. Hiding nominations makes it more inconvenient to find an article you may wish to review, which is not a benefit. You're assuming that people are choosing to stay under the incredibly-high 20-noms-at-once limit; the reality is that most editors will never have 20 GAs in their editing career, let alone 20 nominations at once. This is a limit that will basically never apply to most people, and makes zero difference to their nominating and reviewing behavior. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but in essence this argument means that more visible unreviewed nominations are always a good thing because that means more choice for reviewers, and I don't think that's true, otherwise we'd see review rates increase when the backlog goes up. —Kusma (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That assumes that whether or not people do reviews is largely driven by whether or not they can find something they like. That is, you're assuming people don't review because they look and don't find anything of interest. But in reality, it's that they don't care to look at all. Time and time again, we've seen people in these discussions admit they don't review because they simply don't want to. But for those of us who are looking, having options is a plus, and artificially hiding them is just an extra annoyance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In my case, "whether or not I can find something I like" is actually a quite accurate description of my choice of whether or not I will start a review. The other big factor is whether I have sufficient free time to commit to a long review. But I strongly agree with your main point: for those of us who are looking, having options is a plus. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. I'm not at all saying that finding something that interests you isn't a factor. My point is that it's not the only factor, as Kusma's comment seemed to be arguing. Deciding to review or not isn't quite a yes or no question, it's a flow chart with steps, the first one being "will I look for something to review". Then if the answer is yes, the next step is "did I find something interesting". If you aren't looking for something to review (for whatever reason), the options are irrelevant, because you've self-selected out of looking. But if you have decided to look, having more options available and visible increases the chance of finding something that catches your interest, and so in my opinion hiding them is annoying and counterproductive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PMC, wouldn't those nominations that this proposal would hide also not be visible under your preferred solution, mandatory QPQ of some kind? Since in that case those nominations would be the ones for which the nomination had not done a QPQ? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No? Straight QPQ doesn't arbitrarily hide nominations. If someone decides not to make a nomination because they don't want to do a review themselves, that's not a hidden nomination, that's somebody choosing not to make a nomination because they don't wish to reciprocate the effort they're asking of someone else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see the distinction, but I was trying to get at something else. What I our don't yet understand is the difference that makes to your "did I find something interesting to review" (and others have made the same point elsewhere in this section). I would have thought that if in one case the nomination is available (via the other sort pages), though hidden, and in the other case it never got nominated, it would be in the former case that you would be most likely to find an interesting article to review. Your other point, that this is a sort of semi-QPQ that might not have much effect, I agree with, though I think it would be worth trying, but I don't understand this. Sorry, don't mean to badger you on this, but would be interested if you decide to reply. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not following the argument either. "somebody choosing not to make a nomination because they don't wish to reciprocate the effort they're asking of someone else" is stricter than the proposed system and would provide even less choice, as the "arbitrarily hid[den] nominations" are those which come from unreciprocated effort, but exist unlike in the other system. It has more choice. CMD (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are both making a false equivalence here, I think. Someone choosing not to nominate an article (for whatever reason, including not wanting to do a QPQ) is not the same thing as hiding existing nominations to make the backlog appear smaller. If someone decides that making a GAN is not worth the effort, that's their decision. The only person impacted is them.

  On the other hand, if we whisk X number of existing nominations into hiding, we put reviewers at an inconvenience by arbitrarily reducing the scope of choices that they would have, except for the fact that we decided to hide them to inconvenience the nominators in the hopes of encouraging them to do reviews. If we go ahead and make the hidden noms easy to find and review anyway, so as to not inconvenience reviewers, then we've just removed the incentive to hiding them in the first place! We can't have it both ways. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If "The only person impacted is them" is true, then there have been a lot of statements about potentially driving editors away and about how the process should encourage quality etc. which would need revision. The mistaken logic is saying "hiding existing nominations" is "to make the backlog appear smaller"; the main effect would presumably be to shift reviews within the backlog, which may have a range of impacts but I highly doubt it will make the backlog appear smaller. CMD (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  GAN is a voluntary process. If somebody chooses not to engage in it, they can still write great content. Lots of people do, while ignoring GAN entirely. The only thing that happens if we "drive people away" from GAN by asking them to reciprocate reviews is that their content, like most of the content on the project, isn't reviewed against the GA criteria by another person. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't entirely disagree, but that doesn't seem to be the consensus position. CMD (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And? I'm not in this discussion because I want to preserve the "consensus position". It's the consensus position that's given us 6+ month wait times and people with 200+ nominations and 0 reviews. The consensus position needs a good kick in the pants. People love to talk about how GAN is a content improvement process - how is content being improved if only a tiny portion of nominated articles are actually getting reviewed in any reasonable timeframe? How is our feedback supposed to help editors improve if they're waiting half a year for any?

  I want QPQ because I want content to be getting improved, I want editors to be getting feedback that helps them write better content going forward. I want that for myself, selfishly, and I want it for other people too. And yes, I want people to do the review work I'm choosing to do because I see it as a public good. I would like everyone to recognize that doing reviews, as a nominator, is a public good.

  In my luxury socialist GAN QPQ utopia, I want every nom to get a review within a reasonable time frame. If that means we have to draw a hard line and say "you must put in something in order to take something out", then we should be willing to draw the hard line and ask people to do at least some amount of reviewing if they want one themselves. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, and so the proposal is trying to work with that and is getting hit from both sides. But your statement brings me back to what Mike says, that given you want to kick the consensus position and have QPQs, I can't figure out how you've come to the position of opposition to the proposal. The proposed system would reduce the input of non-QPQed nominations, bringing the system closer to the 1:1 utopia. That sort of regulation is how luxury socialism would surely be achieved, as opposed to the say more libertarian extractive system of the present. CMD (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I oppose Mike's proposal because I do not think it will improve things. It introduces a bunch of complexity in the hopes that people will do more reviews voluntarily based on the possibility that their noms might be a bit more visible and might get reviewed faster. I think we will do a bunch of work to implement the framework for all this, and the people whose noms wind up hidden will shrug and say ok, I guess I'm still waiting as long as I was before, who gives a shit, and not actually do any additional reviews.

  It reminds me of the period in which we arranged reviews by ratio order, which introduced a bunch of complexity in the hopes that people would do more reviews voluntarily based on the possibility that their noms might be a bit closer to the top. It turned out to not produce very much improvement in either wait times or review frequency, and a lot of wasted time implementing the system and explaining it to people over and over again. I remain unconvinced that any kind of attempt to increase reviewing by way of moving noms around will have any effect.

  And all the time we waste implementing and examining and eventually de-implementing the hidden nominations after we discover they don't make much difference is time in which we will not be actually solving our problem by simply having QPQ. (As a side note, I've been very clear that I'm not married to 1:1 QPQ, and have in fact made suggestions for gentler ratios, giving newbies free noms like DYK does, providing extra credit for difficult articles, etc etc, but everyone keeps ignoring those.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any comment on voluntary QPQ like the pledge system I am trying to get off the ground? It is the opposite of complexity. In my ideal world, it should allow everyone who does reviews to have their noms reviewed quickly without changing anything for those who don't review. It is still early days (we have three pledged articles reviewed or under review and four reviews resulting from pledges started, see the tracker), but the system is super lightweight, has no complicated ratios or thresholds and could just work if we get a few more participants. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your proposal and it is better than hiding things, but I still think relying on the hope of voluntary action is unlikely to get us much farther than the position we're currently in. The kind of people who will volunteer for this (or any other version of voluntary QPQ) are the kinds of people who already voluntarily do reviews for their own reasons. It's the people who don't already do reviews that we need to get on board if we want to make any kind of appreciable change, and I'm sorry, but I don't think they're going to volunteer now if they haven't before. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you think we're going to have to get into some kind of elementary school star chart type of thing. Everyone's names on the wall, you get a star sticker for every review, and everyone can see who's falling behind, kind of thing? Kingsif (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be great! They seem to manage it at DYK, I'm sure we can figure out something nice and simple for GAN too :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, DYK's bigger problem is in the bottleneck between passing noms and putting them on the main page. If we're aiming to get the 'main' backlog down, maybe we should create a bottleneck for ourselves... like introduce preliminary reviews (spot check? copyvio? other more objective criteria?) that must be completed with X timeframe. Noms can be quickfailed for bad sources/copyvio without waiting for a full review, and those that pass prelims get to go into the main pile.

  It might also be preferable for nominators, as they're not waiting months just to be quickfailed for those things - or for those issues to be brought up, they can immediately fix the little issues and renominate. Something to workshop? Kingsif (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've said for years that we should be quickfailing more articles early on rather than letting them sit, only to disappoint the nominators by failing them after months. I love the idea of doing preliminary reviews to weed out quickfail noms, but considering we already have a deficit of volunteer reviewers, who do you think will take these up? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Anecdotally: I did. That is, I did the equivalent, namely quickfailing clearly-premature nomination, back when we sorted nominations by review/GA ratio. There was an incentive to do so. I brought this up back in March 2024 when we changed the sort order back. TompaDompa (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I snipe quickfails too, because I don't mind being the hatchet man when necessary, but my point was that if we add a mandatory layer of pre-reviewing to an already-burdened process, who is going to do it? If it's not mandatory, then it's just quickfailing by another name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since mandatory pre-reviews should theoretically be easier, less time-consuming, and not require much of an analytical level of review (objective criteria), I would probably not object to enforcing a 1:1 QPQ for these. People can do that. Another alternative could be that we use something like the MilHist project's automatic rating bot - like, if the bot rates an article below B-class, it gets rejected for GA review, though that would be without more feedback than just pass/fail of the B-class criteria. Kingsif (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is, under my proposal, you can do reviews for the entirely selfish reason of "I want my article reviewed now". If it works, review wait time for reviewers would be low, and I don't actually care how long people with 150 GAs and no reviews wait for their articles to get reviewed. This is perhaps not eliminating the backlog, but it is eliminating the part of the backlog that I care about. —Kusma (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair; we have slightly different aims is all. You're working out a system of publicly-logged horse trading to skip the backlog for those willing to volunteer, and I would like the work to be shared between everyone as a public good. I admit that part of my reluctance toward your system and for GARC is my own workflow - I like to pick and choose when and what I review rather than being on a timeline and with my options severely curtailed. But - okay, in the spirit of not being a total ass, here I go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The way the proposal handles complexity is quite elegant, in that it ensures that all complexity is restricted to the backend, leaving the base functions untouched. For the average editor, the process is entirely unchanged and no more complex: nominate an article, wait for it to get reviewed, participate in the review. We actually wouldn't have to do any work for the proposal, except for Mike Christie. In contrast, adding QPQs adds complexity directly to the front end, to the nominator, directly affecting all users and making their process more complicated. This is exacerbated when adding complexities to the QPQ beyond 1:1 (as DYK has found when it has tried 2:1). I'm still getting my head around Kusma's proposal, but one of the issues it may have is not being entirely clear to users yet being directly present on the GAN page. The statement on the hopes is again quite simplified, it has a few effects of which the potential review nudge is one. Another effect is that it is a bit more socialist, in making the presentation of noms more evenly distributed per editor. CMD (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it more socialist? It feels like creating a problem for the people to try and fix the system, rather than changing the system to benefit the people. Either way, as long as we don't hit a communist kinda assigning of users to be reviewers, every proposal should be considered. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how far to push the socialism analogy, but this is explicitly changing the system to benefit the people, reading "the people" to be those not absorbing up the most capital (time) without paying taxes (also time). CMD (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have an objection to adding complexity in and of itself, I have an objection to complexity that does not add utility, and I've been pretty clear that I think Mike's system will not add utility. On the other hand, QPQ may add complexity, but the utility of reviews getting done at scale makes it worth it.

  as DYK has found when it has tried 2:1 - I've never found the 2:1 at DYK to be an unworkably complex obstacle, and I've been subjected to it once or twice IIRC. Everybody is assuming that QPQ has to be done at the time of the nomination; it doesn't, even at DYK. Do a dozen reviews at once and then spend a year not doing any while you nominate a dozen articles. Or do one every time you nominate. Or do some other weird pattern that tickles your fancy. Doesn't matter as long as they get done at whatever ratio the community decides is suitable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You can do that under the proposed system as well! One R/G measure is infinite over a lifetime, it can all be banked. CMD (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will say that I have found 2:1 QPQ at DYK to be quite annoying when I have encountered it—not because it is complicated (I review ahead of time and use those when I need them, always maintaining something of a stockpile) but because it feels unfair. When I reviewed those nominations the premises were that each review equalled one nomination I could make, and then the rules got changed so it only counts for half. It wouldn't surprise me if changes here at GAN led to quite a bit of resentment (and perhaps disengagement) for similar reasons.

  Premeditated Chaos, if I understand you correctly your hope is that QPQ would make those who currently nominate a lot more than they review start reviewing more. If it instead turns out that they respond by nominating less (perhaps disengaging entirely), would you view that as a positive outcome, an unfortunate side-effect, or a value-neutral consequence? TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A value-neutral consequence. My comment above beginning with And? I'm not in this discussion because I want to preserve the "consensus position", and my reply to the immediate reply, explains my position pretty clearly, I think, but I'll repeat myself some more. By making a nomination, you are explicitly making a request for another editor's time and energy. You cannot complete the process without it. This is different from just writing content, which you can do alone all day and all night if you want. Since we're all unpaid volunteers here, our time and energy is the only currency we have, and it's valuable. Therefore, if you're asking for someone else's time by making a GAN, the fair thing to do is to offer your own time back in exchange. Otherwise you are getting something valuable (time and energy) for nothing. If someone does not wish to make a fair exchange, I am perfectly content with them nominating less.

  I'm sorry that changing the process may cause resentment and feel unfair, but that's basically always true. We get used to the status quo in life, and changing things is difficult to adjust to. But eventually the change becomes the status quo. We can't just avoid making changes forever because the adjustment period may be difficult for some. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Something that's occurred to me over these discussions is that if we were to implement QPQ, technically there might not be much difference in the approaches as far as the bot is concerned. If we implemented mandatory QPQ, I would not be able to prevent GAN nominations; I'd only be able to not display them. The most I could do would be to provide a list so that a human could fail them, if that's how we decide to handle them. For the nominator that's quite a difference, of course, but the bot would handle both the same way. Hence it also occurred to me if we ever do reach agreement on some response to the growing backlog, I would probably implement it as flexibly as possible so that different approaches could be tried. For example, if this RfC were to pass, setting the backlog to 0, the minimum ratio to 1.0 and the number of allowed nominations for editors below that ratio to 0 would be implementing mandatory QPQ. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is an enormous difference between a QPQ system like DYK's, where we match nominations one-for-one with reviews, and a ratio test.

  The ratio test would effectively ban contributors like User:Chiswick Chap (who has been very prolific at both nominations and reviews but at different rates) from ever making another nomination.

  I would strongly oppose any such implementation of a QPQ system for many of the same reasons that I oppose the current shadow-ban proposal. It is a punishment, and not even a punishment for new misbehavior but rather for behavior that at the time was within rules. We should be trying to find ways to improve our balance of nominations to reviews that are reward-based, not punishment-based. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems clear that the ratio would be started afresh with a QPQ system, and people wouldn't have to catch up. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And a reminder that the current ratio test proposal would not ban a single contributor ever even if they made no reviews. CMD (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if editors do not want their articles hidden, they can help with the backlog and review articles. If they want their article reviewed more quickly, they can join a WP:GARC. Reviewing articles shows other editors that they understand the GA criteria and want to contribute to this process. This proposal makes it easier for reviewers to see who those editors are. Z1720 (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm kind of neutral on this proposal (a large backlog is bad, I'm not sure hiding part of it makes any difference), but a question occurs to me based on your comment - would a nominator whose articles were hidden under this proposal still be able to propose them as part of a GARC? YFB ¿ 13:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Presumably, it doesn't say not and the nom still exists as a nom. Kingsif (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720 Genuinely no offense, but the vibe I'm getting from this !vote is a lot of what I think is wrong with the proposal at a theoretical level: it's all about personal and individual, and not about the process. It's about punishment and doing things to get higher up the pecking order if punishments need to happen, not about positive encouragement or working together for the benefit of WP. Kingsif (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kingsif: I wish we were in a utopian society where all editors would do this anyways, but that is not the reality, and something needs to change to get those editors to review. In my opinion, there needs to be consequences for editors who contribute to the backlog by nominating articles without reviewing them. Other process have already implemented systems with consequences: DYK has QPQ, so experienced editors can't have their articles on the main page unless they review, and FAC has nominations time out, and editors who do not review are more likely to have their nominations archived. If this proposal is not the right solution, I would encourage editors who oppose this to suggest other solutions. Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel it worth pointing out again given the absolute language here that the proposal includes a clause which restricts the "consequences" to ensure no editors are actually excluded from the system if they do no reviews. CMD (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hiding nominations is basically exclusion, just masked as an alternative. Punishing people for not reviewing is an incredibly horrible idea; you have no idea how many GA nominators you'll lose from this. Hell, I might even stop nominating if this goes through because I'm not the greatest at reviewing. — ^EF⁵ 14:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, nobody is excluded. Everyone will have a nomination on the list if they want to. Once again, we have no idea how many GA nominators we lose from the current system, who are already not nominating. CMD (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• CMD is correct that this proposal does not exclude editors from participation, but rather reward editors who are reviewing work, and highlighting new editors to the GAN process. This is why I think this proposal is a net-positive, even if my word choice in explaining why I like this is less than ideal. I also feel that the high backlog is discouraging new editors from nominating articles, which is the opposite of what GAN wants. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This idea will likely discourage more editors from nominating, because they'll have the burden of also reviewing if they want theirs reviewed. We're fighting fire with gas here. — ^EF⁵ 14:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • @EF5: I think it is a net-positive for GAN that editors who want to nominate also feel an obligation to review. Reviewing allows an editor to better understand the GA criteria. If an editor can identify the good article criteria in other articles, I feel more confident that they can identify good articles in articles they want to nominate. I also think that this proposal excludes hiding articles from new GAN nominators, so they will not feel the need to review right away if they don't want to (although I would still encourage them to review, and ask for feedback on the reviews if needed). Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That still avoids the fact that people will 100% be driven away from the process if we were to pick this up. Some people simply don't want to review, and this process either forces people to review or punishes people for not reviewing (by throwing their nomination in an infinitely-growing list without guarantee that it'll ever be picked up, if you don't think that's a negative thing we'll just agree-to-disagree). It builds up better reviewers, but what happens to all the other people who don't review? Horrible idea that only benefits a certain demographic. — ^EF⁵ 14:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Z1720 is not avoiding that fact, unlike the continued avoidance that the current system already deters. Those who don't want to review will have their nomination in an explicitly less infinite list than the current system. Those that don't want review would continue to nominate articles and have them reviewed. CMD (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 I too, but I'll add that I don't share your opinion - I think being an active and responsive nominator is as much work as reviewing, being either party in a nom is the same-ish workload and it makes no sense to persecute one user and not the other depending on which they pick. This is unlike DYK, where there's technical checks for a reviewer and many noms are passed right away.

To just comment on a view you've shared further down in the thread with EF5, I don't think it can be considered a 'reward' that editors doing (in general) more work than they are now in terms of reviews would get the same treatment they do now (and for it to be, then, 'standard' that those who don't do more work in reviews than now will get technically worse treatment than they do now). Kingsif (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per David Eppstein and others above. I find it difficult to see how hiding noms can help with the backlog. GoldRomean (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose When I'm trying to find an article to review, my main factor for my decision is the article itself. Of course, I would rather review an article of someone who has a good GA review to promotions ratio, who has less GAs, etc. But first and foremost, I find an article I can spend a week reviewing. I especially oppose hiding reviews where people have many GAs--that is something we should be encouraging, not hiding. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 08:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am concerned that an editor expects a GAN review to take a week. A GAN process should be reformed so that the expectation is that a review will take less than a day, imo. Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023, there was agreement on listing Model reviews with the understanding that they should not be used to enforce any specific reviewing style. That discussion links some general examples, but I think the more recent cases of Talk:Charles Tottenham, 8th Marquess of Ely/GA1 and Talk:Johnson Wax Headquarters/GA1 express well what a review taking less than a day may look like. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 14:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My own reviews rarely take more than 24 hours unless I interrupt myself for offwiki reasons. I think model reviews could be generally a good thing, but we should be careful not to promote reviews that do not clearly say that everything has been checked, to avoid the impression that not everything needs to be checked. —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be supportive of the inclusion of several model reviews alongside the instructions. Keep them simple but complete, demonstrating a reviewer concisely covering every criteria and providing at least a few points of correction/improvement. For a separate conversation, perhaps! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not only would this proposal harm nominators by creating a system that favors those who are able to review Good Article Nominations, but it also harms reviewers by hiding articles that the reviewer might feel motivated to review, causing the situation to be ever worse. There is also no guarantees of each subject area being represented when we hide articles by statistics of the nominator, so a reviewer who, for example, might want to review a mathematics article, and it just so happens that all the mathematics articles are hidden by this process, so that reviewer will feel discouraged to actually contribute a review to clear that backlog.Gramix13 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the problem is that generally, people are more likely to nominate articles than review them at a comparable rate. I don't think this solution solves that problem. We need something that either requires or truly incentivizes reviews. Unfortunately, the only thing I can think of that does this is some sort of QPQ system. For fairness sake, I think that the QPQ should be applied equally to all editors over a certain threshold of passed GANs. This allows the editor who randomly wants to nominate an article or two to do so, but then basically says "if you want the benefits of this system, then we need you to participate in the back end too". This is how DYK works. Basically, if you wants the benefits of having an article you wrote on the Main Page, then you need to help other editors achieve the same thing. Are there problems with this process? Sure! But they are resolvable and in my opinion those problems are easier to address than having a perpetual backlog that turns editors off from contributing. I truly believe the GAN process does good work, it improves articles and enhances the encyclopedia. But the process is breaking and if we want it to continue, we need to make some serious changes. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Hold more backlog drives instead. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts, we're already doing 3 a year and it's clear there's diminishing returns the more we do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar, the WP:RFCBEFORE can be found at #Is it time for quid pro quo? higher up this page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Two questions. (1) Why is this not a subsection of #Is it time for quid pro quo? That section is so high up the page that several unrelated threads intervene. (2) Is it not possible to have a statement that doesn't call out WP:TLDR? The RfC statement - which is copied here - is not exactly WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I felt it would be more visible at the end of the page, but now that I think about it I realize I should ping everyone who commented up in that section. I'll do so in a moment. (2) No, it's not brief, and I don't like the complexity, but the earlier conversation raised varying opinions about each of the three points. I attempted to summarize it in the first sentence: Some nominations will not be displayed on the GAN page if the backlog is high, the nominator has a low ratio of reviews to GAs, the nominator has more than one nomination waiting, and the nominator has more than some minimum number of GAs total. That's the RfC in a nutshell; the rest is just specifying how it would work. I'm open to abbreviating it but couldn't think of a way to do so without making it vague. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC statement should be a short attention-getter (think clickbait) that will bring in the people, it doesn't need to go into detail. The key points are (i) the backlog; and (ii) the proposal that some would not be displayed. Accordingly, I've written one, and added it at the top. It's got no signature, as permitted by WP:RFCST, because it's not my RfC, but it does have a timestamp, so that Legobot can identify where the statement ends. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. Thanks for fixing that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support you're suggestion of mandatory review: why don't you put it up for a vote? TheUzbek (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to -- is the question directed at me? If so, I don't support making reviews mandatory, beyond the approach in this RfC of prioritizing nominations by those who do review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some discussion above about the presence of a large backlog discouraging nominations that would otherwise have happened. I don't doubt that this is true in individual cases (because some have said that they, personally, are discouraged), but do we have any data on the size of the effect? This having a sizeable effect seems like an at least somewhat testable hypothesis, seeing as we would then expect the nomination rate after successful backlog drives ("successful" in the sense of "appreciably reducing the size of the backlog") to see an increase and then exhibit a regression towards the previous state as the backlog size grows again. Mike Christie? I think it worth trying to tease this out, because it is also undeniably the case that there are those who would be discouraged from contributing to the process if reviewing were mandatory or semi-mandatory, or even quasi-mandatory (because, again, some have said as much). If this is to be the choice between the lesser of two evils, surely we should want to assess them quantitatively to the extent that we are able to do so lest we mistakenly choose the greater under the misapprehension that it is the lesser. TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a graph that may answer your question:

The green highlights are backlog drives. Some of the other reductions are due to reviewing sprees by one or more editors; I don't think that explains all of them but it would be hard to tease out the exact reasons. I would say, just looking at this, that there is a tendency for the backlog to increase faster after a drive ends. I don't think it's possible to say whether that's because normal reviewing activity dips at the end of a backlog drive, from exhaustion, or from an increase on nominations, or a mixture. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note: you missed highlighting the backlog drive of May this year IAWW (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I did; now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a few things we can look at. If the most important factor influencing the speed at which the backlog size increases (in particular, immediately following backlog drives) is that nominations are discouraged by a large backlog, we would expect the slope of the line (outside of backlog drives or other unusual circumstances) to be more-or-less a function of the size of the backlog, i.e. roughly the same whenever the backlog size is the same regardless of when that happens to be relative to the backlog drives, and we would expect it to be steeper the smaller the backlog is. If the most important factor is reviewer burn-out during backlog drives, we would expect the slope immediately after backlog drives to be consistently steeper than the slope immediately before them but more-or-less unrelated to the size of the backlog. If the most important factor immediately following a backlog drive is simply a return to normal reviewing (and nominating) habits, we would expect the slope to be the same before and after the drive. I think it is fair to say that this graph does not persuasively demonstrate any of these three things. Which is of course not to say that it disproves any of them either—we just don't have a clear signal that we can confidently discern through the noise. We always have to remember that we have something kind of similar to the Hawthorne effect here that complicates matters—editors know about the backlog drives and presumably adjust their nomination and reviewing habits in response (beyond simply reviewing more during drives). Do we have pure nomination-side data, e.g. nominations per month, that shows a clear correlation to backlog metrics (e.g. backlog size, waiting time, or backlog drive timing)? TompaDompa (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this can be teased out in that way. I doubt many editors have a backlog number in mind where they then decide to contribute, or are checking frequently enough for the data to track it if they do. They also may form an initial impression from their first experience and work from that going forward. What fascinates me about the graph is how the numbers seem to return to some sort of equilibrium, at least before 2025 (at least within the timescale of this dataset). CMD (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the equilibrium thing is very interesting. It does strongly suggest that at a certain point of backlog, people are discouraged from nominating new articles, which is what many people have been saying anecdotally as well. And it does really look like the change in the WikiCup did have a strong effect, though there's a pretty steep rise mid-2022 as well. -- asilvering (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can make the data available via Google Drive or email if you like, if you want to do your own digging. I agree with CMD's caveat above, and in addition I am hesitant to do this analysis myself because when we changed the sort order a couple of years ago I spent a good deal of time trying to see if it had any effect on anything, and found the data so noisy that it was very frustrating to work with. I was unable to come to any conclusions; I wasn't even able to conclude that the sort order made no difference. The data I have is, for every GA, a table that shows the dates on which it was nominated, reviewed, and completed. It doesn't show what the backlog was at each time so that would have to be correlated with the data for the graph above, which is taken from WP:GANR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a WikiMail. I'll try to find the time to have a look at the data, but I make no promises. I think that the inability to draw any firm conclusions is actually in itself at least somewhat revealing, because a sufficiently strong signal would be visible through the noise regardless, so there's an upper limit to how much of an impact there can be if we can't see it. TompaDompa (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link sent. I agree re the implications of the lack of a strong signal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I threw together some statistics. A massive caveat when interpreting these is that in the entire dataset of 67,181 nominations, 8,446 (12.6%) lack data on when the article was nominated.

I can't say I see persuasive evidence here that reducing the size of the backlog leads to an increase in nominations (as would be expected if a large backlog is a quantitatively important factor in discouraging nominations). For instance, the August 2023 and January 2022 backlog drives reduced the size of the backlog by a lot, but we don't see large increases in nominations when comparing September 2023 to July 2023 or February 2022 to December 2021 (i.e. immediately before and after each drive). Of course, the data is rather noisy (and in this case, low-quality due to the large proportion of entries with missing data) and the effect of the backlog size could be a much more longterm effect, so we can't really rule it out, either. TompaDompa (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been informed that I misread the data, and it is in fact only 269 out of 57,129 GAN entries (0.5%) that do not have a nomination date. I have consequently double-checked the monthly figures, and updated them accordingly. The errors in these figures were for the most part small—the largest were 21 (July 2020), 17 (August 2021), 12 (December 2020), and 12 (February 2021), while the rest were in the single digits—and do not materially change my conclusions. TompaDompa (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not expect reducing the size of the backlog to lead to an immediate increase in nominations, as above. Long-term I would expect the effect to occur sort of in the inverse, that as a backlog became established nominations would decrease. Any evidence that the boxing of noms created any discouraging effect? CMD (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not expect that either, but if we had seen that it would have been strong evidence in favour of that explanatory model. It would also lend credence to the notion that reducing the size of the backlog is a worthwhile goal. I can't quite say that there is persuasive evidence of that long-term effect here, either. The last three months in this dataset do show a decline in nominations, and it does coincide with the backlog exceeding 800 for the first time, but the number of nominations fluctuates throughout this time period in a way that does not neatly correlate to the backlog in this way. If the months ahead continue to display a consistent pattern of low(er) nomination activity (and the backlog remains this size), however, I would find it more convincing. TompaDompa (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of comments in the support/oppose section that I'd like to respond to, but I think it's better to do so here to avoid a long thread under one !vote.

• David Eppstein said How is hiding the backlog and creating a class of permanently-backlogged nominations likely to improve anything other than purely the cosmetic appearance of having a shorter listing? Where is the logic behind this? "Permanently" is inaccurate; the approach slows down nominations from some nominators, but would never lead to them having no nominations on the GAN page. The GAN backlog would still be reported (at the top of the GAN page) as 900, or 950, or whatever it might be. If there is a cosmetic effect, it's no more than we already get by hiding nominations over 20 by a single nominator; those also don't appear to someone just glancing down the page. You ask what the logic is: we're allocating a finite resource, and I think everyone should be allowed access to that resource, but those who contribute to the resource should get some benefit for doing so. That benefit is that their nominations will not be the ones slowed down when the backlog is high.
• Reverosie said It's especially unfair to those who do not have the time to review articles themselves and those who do not speak English as a native/native-like language. It does tilt the playing field, and you may think that's unfair, but if we are going to talk about fairness I would argue that those who contribute the most to the process are not treated fairly either.
• Reverosie also said It has the potential to lead to less quality content on Wikipedia, which is the opposite of what we want.. GA reviews are not about creating quality content; they're about getting recognition for that content. Some reviews lead to improvements, it's true, but those who want to create quality articles without reviewing can still do so, at whatever rate they like, and can even get those articles reviewed -- just not as quickly as those who do review. Rate-limiting at GAN is not about rate-limiting quality, it's about rate-limiting resource usage.
• PMC said I simply can't see any way that hiding nominations would be an effective way of achieving any kind of backlog reduction/increase in reviewing. No guarantees that this would work, but the intention is that some of those who could perfectly well review more would find this an incentive to start doing so, in order to speed up their own nominations. I know of excellent article writers who have a hard time with reviewing, and I don't like slowing down their nominations, but I also know of prolific nominators who never, or almost never, review, and who could review very well but decline to do so. I do think those nominations should be slowed down, and if I could think of a way to do so without penalizing others I'd suggest it.

I don't think this is a perfect answer but one question I'd have for those who oppose is: is there a backlog size (or an average wait to review, if you prefer that metric) above which you would agree something should be done? Or do you think that yes, something should be done now, but nobody has proposed an idea you think is good enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said in the primary discussion that in my opinion, mandating some version of QPQ is the best and most straightforward option for actually reducing the wait time for a review. I recognize that it's unpopular, but I think we're lying to ourselves if we think anything else will make a difference. Maybe we'd get some mileage out of radically cranking our review expectations down to more lightweight standards, but nobody seems to like that idea enough to get it through, and I still don't think that the people with 50+ noms and 0 reviews will care.

With apologies, I don't think artificially hiding the backlog in the hopes that people will review will provoke enough reviews to create a useful decrease in wait time, just like rearranging the review order, creating Review Circles, and relying on backlog drives and WikiCup incentives hasn't helped. The plain fact is that there aren't enough people that prefer reviewing over writing to make up the difference, flat out. There never have been. We have to find a way to make mandatory QPQ functional or we'll be looking at normalizing 2-year wait times. Whether we fiddle the numbers so we're only demanding 1 review per X articles nominated, or let long/difficult reviews count for double credit, or some other thing, we need to find a way to ensure that people who want to use the community resource are putting something back into it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My main worry about the proposal is that it could be a path to almost mandatory QPQ just by tweaking the numbers. Do you think there could be any compromise option? —Kusma (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise where I would support hiding nominations as a sideways maybe-sort-of path to something kind of like QPQ instead of straightforwardly mandating QPQ? No. If we're going to do QPQ - and obviously I think we should - we should be clear that that's what we're doing, and design a system that works for the community on that basis. None of this "ok well if we do this other thing and put a hat on it, it might act a bit like QPQ if we're lucky". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, and you're right this is a compromise RfC, but I think you're making the perfect be the enemy of the good. When you say re QPQ "design a system that works for the community on that basis" do you have anything in mind? I dislike the idea of QPQ; we all know the problems it could bring. Do you think it's possible to come up with something that would work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about an opt-in system. Users can opt-in to be beholden to QPQ. Presumably everyone who's indicated support for it would? And you know what, a trial run of that, plus ability to compare with the users not opting in, could give us some stats on if it's more efficient. Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie - what I meant by that was tailoring things to where the community can accept it. As I said, perhaps we give extra credit for long or difficult reviews to encourage people to take those up, we can adjust the QPQ ratio so instead of 1 review for 1 nom we go to 1:2 or even 1:5, we give the first X noms free, etc etc. If there's other modifications people can think of, I'd be happy to see them.

I don't see my opposition to hiding nominations as letting perfect be the enemy of the good. I've been pretty clear that I think it will only result in confusion and annoyance, and will not prompt sufficient benefit to break even, let alone be a net good, so I don't see a reason to support it.

@Kingsif - making QPQ voluntary is effectively what we have right now. What would the benefit be for those who choose to opt in for your proposed trial? (In case you ask, I already consider myself beholden to QPQ - my ratio has consistently been 3:1 for years now). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's the best part: absolutely nothing. Maybe giving the option will have people sign up for the good of the project as a personal challenge or because they think it'll help, a level of discipline that's taken up if offered. (I don't see requiring QPQ as a positive, but if some users want to volunteer, yeah, they'll either nominate less or review more by choice.) (In case you ask, I have the same ratio but don't really think about it.) Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So...you want things to remain exactly as they are. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've never taken up a challenge just because it's formally offered, when you wouldn't have done the activity otherwise? Never played a game that has daily activity bonuses that's encouraged you to be active every day, when you might have otherwise had longer breaks from it? Kingsif (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am already doing this, and will continue to, as is anyone already inclined to do reviews. The problem continues to be the people who are not voluntarily inclined to do this work. If you think a bunch of these people will suddenly reverse course because of an informal proposal that they can now volunteer to do more work with no appreciable benefit to themselves (ie, the exact same thing they could be doing now absent your proposal), I can respect your optimism while doubting much will change. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif I'm a bit late to the party but I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. Trying to maintain a 3:1 ratio was already a slog and it just burned me out from GAR and Wikipedia as a whole. QPQ is a perennial topic because maintenance isn't always fun; it's sometimes necessary. I do more reviews because I know it's healthier for the system as a whole, albeit less enjoyable for me personally. Our current system just isn't sustainable, and we've tried to good will a solution for 20 years now. I'm not a fan of hiding noms, rather a soft QPQ. (E.g. per every 5 GAs you need a review. Something that most users won't ever run into but enough to keep the worst offenders in check.) 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 06:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no indications in the data that the current system isn't sustainable per se, QPQ discussions more turn on how review time is allocated within the system. CMD (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's an unreasonable expectation. In fact, I think it's more reasonable than any enforcement. If people opt in, they're choosing something that users like you and I already do, and good for them taking on the challenge - and if people don't, they don't get demoralised. I don't think the current system is unsustainable or broken, I honestly find a lot of nominators to have great patience. Kingsif (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could imagine a more widely used and more elaborate GARC system as similar to "opt in QPQ". —Kusma (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "the intention is that some of those who could perfectly well review more would find this an incentive to start doing so": that intention is very well hidden in arcane rules about when nominations become visible that will be non-obvious to all but the most regular of GA participants. Instead of an incentive, it comes across as a punishment for not reviewing.

In a volunteer system like this one, getting people to volunteer by punishing them for not volunteering cannot work. Who would want to participate in a volunteer system that punishes its participants? It seems far likelier to drive people away. If you want to institute an ongoing rewards system, to encourage reviewers to volunteer, it needs to be an actual reward system, not a "do this or else" punishment system. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "Who would want to participate in a volunteer system that punishes its participants?" is apparently "a lot", as DYK is regularly struggling with having too many nominations despite a strict QPQ. CMD (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me a strict QPQ seems very different than a "QPQ or else nobody sees your nomination" rule. A strict QPQ is merely the price for participation, imposed on all non-new participants. It's the "or else" that turns it into a punishment. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels to me like a matter of where you start from. If we had strict QPQ now, and were considering relaxing it by saying that those who no longer wished to comply now had a choice between QPQ or a risk of having the noms hidden when the backlog was high, that would feel like a relaxation of the rules, not a punishment, surely? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently needed to note again that people will always see a nomination from every editor under the proposal, whether they are old participants or new participants. CMD (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a misprisal of the situation, and a distraction, as the problem is the increasing severity of the instructions for GA reviewers, especially on reviewing sources, and their consequent unsurprising reluctance to take on the task. The other point to take on board is that it is not true that there is GA nomination on the left of the imaginary scales, and GA reviewing on the right. For example, where would responding to a GAR sit? It could be seen as a review, in which case it's on the right; or as a bit more constructive work on the article, in which case it's on the left. And there are other tasks that contribute to getting an article to GA in the first place, like taking photographs, drawing diagrams, talk page discussion, humble copy-editing, AWB-driven checking of references and other bits of syntax, and sometimes peer review too. Editors bring different skills to bear, and all of them are useful. It makes no sense to take just two of them and divide one by the other: both editing-and-nominating and reviewing are positive contributions to the project, alongside all the other contributions I've mentioned. The ratio view is simply an attempt to smuggle in the many-times-rejected QPQ by the back door, ignoring the consensus against it, the previous failed experiment in ratio-based display of articles up for review, and the multiple kinds of contribution to GA, not just two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The downsides of GARC are (i) having to rely on somebody "starting" the circle (ii) limited choice of nominations to review (iii) limited visibility as it is not part of the main GAN system. A general "get one review, do one review" opt-in QPQ system would be easier and more flexible. Could we make one? Here is a sketch of an idea.

• Any nominator will be able to add a "pledge" flag to their nominations, meaning a promise to do a review of a "pledge" nomination ASAP after someone starts a review of their nomination.
• ChristieBot keeps track of and displays number of reviews pledged (open GA noms), pledges fulfilled (GA reviews) and pledges obtained (GAs under this system).
• There is a bot-enforced cap on the number of reviews a user can pledge that depends on their pledge history, designed to essentially mean "get one review, do one review".

Such a system (or variations of it; for example, people could pledge to do a pledged plus an open nomination) would ensure faster reviews for committed reviewers while keeping everything else the same, essentially extending the "review circle" system to a larger review and reviewer pool. People participating in the "pledge" system would still be able to (and could be encouraged to) review from the general pool. Nobody would be forced to review against their will, so nobody has to endure reviews by reviewers who do not want to do the job. Is this worth thinking about or is this Crazy Eddie? —Kusma (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Should this take off, my personal Crazy Eddie pledge would start as follows: review one Crazy Eddie pledge nom plus one other nomination for each review of my own Crazy Eddie nominations. Twenty people doing that would mean very fast reviews for them and a general reduction in the backlog. —Kusma (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Inexperienced reviewer, so limited data points to go on, but in a strange way I found the limited choice in a GARC to be a benefit — when the backlog is huge, figuring out where to begin is a task in itself. But I quite like your crazy idea, it would expand the visibility and effective reach of the GARC model and perhaps increase the peer-pressure effect on those who are reticent to review, without artificially hiding part of the backlog. Ultimately I think given the amount of reviewer bandwidth consumed by the prolific nominators, there does need to be some mechanism to incentivise them to balance their noms with reviews. YFB ¿ 10:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Anecdotally, as an infrequent reviewer and nominator, this proposal would absolutely increase my review volume. I like having control over what I review. Additionally, if I simply had some free time, there is a sort of Gift Aid effect with this system: I could effectively get 2 reviews for the price of 1 by reviewing one in the Pledge bucket and not nominating one of my own. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like it - it's been noted in discussion above how the review circles are what editors seem to consider the ideal nom-review scenario, so to extend that as an option to the whole pool would be a positive. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we could also do this informally and without bot enforcement (assuming honesty and honour). We would just need to have a critical mass of people who participate. All that is needed is to use the |note= field in {{GA nominee}}, for example with |note=I pledge that when my article gets reviewed, I will review two other articles, one of them with a review pledge if possible linking to some explanation page like User:Kusma/Pledge. If this becomes widely popular and there are a few popular pledge types (for example the standard "when my article gets reviewed, I will review another article with a review pledge" that is equivalent to opt-in QPQ) it could become part of the nomination process with its own parameter in both {{GA nominee}} and {{GANentry}}. —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I have to, by chance, stumble upon a nominated Pledge article to find it, this probably will have no effect on how much I review personally. If the intent here is to get folks who don't review often to review, I think it should be implemented formally and be visible on WP:GAN and the GA nom Talk template. Honour system is great but will not have the penetration necessary to reach critical mass, IMO. Visuals are great (e.g., |pledge=yes field) and it could even be worked into the automatic bot message—otherwise this sounds like the as-is opt-in QPQ with extra steps, invisible to people who don't see this page often (eg., me). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With my suggestions, it would be visible both in the Talk template and at WP:GAN. Ctrl-F for the "Note:" below a nomination at WP:GAN. You can also see these in the GA nom template on the talk page, for example at Talk:Order of New Brunswick. —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree with you that |pledge=yes or |pledge=double or something like that, accompanied by suitable text and bot messages, would be even better. All I'm saying is that a group of rogue reviewers could just start WP:BOLDly doing this even if there is no consensus here that it should be done. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We now have two nominations with review pledges live, see WP:GAN. Please add your own! —Kusma (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: Both have had reviews started. If you pledge a review, you can get a review that someone has pledged almost immediately. —Kusma (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I like the idea. I'll pledge mine in the future IAWW (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: Just two days later, we have had six GA noms with pledges that were taken up within 24 hours and a dozen of pledges reviews started. See here for the current status. —Kusma (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of everything that's been put forward, this idea Kusma seems to be the most workable and impactful, excluding a full-blown QPQ requirement. The thought too of encouraging 2-for-1 reviews also has the very real impact of lowering the backlog. I think this process should continue to be more formalized and become a main part of the GAN page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, I would support moving your page to Wikipedia:Good article review pledges. It also would be cool if {{GAN}} could be updated so that there is a field like |pledge=yes that could be added that would auto-populate something like Category:Active good article review pledges and Category:Completed good article review pledges or something like that. Would make tracking easier, and I am sure at some point we could have ChristieBot create a separate sortable list that only shows articles with pledges. You could also add a "participant" section to the page for editors to show their interest in participating in this voluntary QPQ process. Just some ideas :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gonzo fan2007, I am glad you think this is going to work. I was planning a move to the WP namespace in a few weeks after some more "beta testing", but I don't mind it happening earlier. I am not quite sure yet what the best infrastructure in terms of template changes, categories, bots and bot-maintained lists would be, so any ideas are welcome.

Our current status, by the way, is that we had 12 pledges, of which 10 have been given reviews, leading to 18 pledged reviews, with only little overlap so we probably helped with the backlog. Longest time to wait for a review after a pledge has been two days. We had many generous pledges, including some innovations, for example Gonzo fan2007 pledged four review in order to have two articles reviewed at the same time. —Kusma (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An advantage of a move plus a dedicated tab on the main GA page would be that the system could advertise itself without having open pledges. We currently have two; additional pledges would be welcome. —Kusma (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one in support. I haven't kept track of the completed ones so far, I assume a common "I pledge..." phrasing helps identify them? CMD (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I ctrl-F "pledge" on WP:GAN to see if there are any new ones. Links to User:Kusma/Pledge are appreciated but optional. Of course all of this should be done by some template and bot magic, but so far we can still run the beta test by hand :) —Kusma (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in saying that when I or you or anyone alludes to template and bot magic, we're referring to Mike doing some tech labour? I don't object to moving it into GAN at some point in the near future but I could understand Mike, from an effort-value perspective, wanting a longer demonstration of commitment to the process by editors before he does any work and agrees to support something new on an ongoing basis. (If I am wrong about this being Mike, consider this retracted by default; I only recently learned Christie Bot belonged to Mike Christie. Yes, you read that correctly.) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably include asking Mike for some minor changes to the bot, yes. At the current stage, I am not sure what exactly to ask for or what the best template setup would be. I guess we need more people who try out the pledge system and hope that a few of them are seasoned coders who are less naive than me about how to best structure this. —Kusma (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how I feel about QPQ just yet, but I wanted to note something that I don't think has been discussed above at all (unless I missed it) that I think is crucial to understanding the problem. Back when I was frequent at GAN (we're talking 10+ years ago at this point), yes the backlog would fluctuate greatly, sometimes 200 sometimes 500. However, even when it crept up to the 600s and 700s, one thing that always remained constant was the review percentage. Until recently, the numbers either under review or on hold hovered around 20%. Yes sometimes it would fluctuate a bit especially during backlog drives, but when there were 300, you'd see about 60 under review, and when there were 500 GANs, you'd see about 100 under review. Around the time that source reviews became mandatory (I'm not necessarily blaming this but the timing is fairly clear), reviews took a dip, and they simply haven't hit that 20% since. Right now the percentage is around 12%, and that number concerns me more than the 800 GANs does. That right there is simply not sustainable. Does that mean reviews should be easier? In some cases yes. I see some articles that stay under review for six months where the reviewer is going over everything with a fine toothed comb, and while I appreciate wanting to do that, that's not what GAN is or should be. However, the number of insufficient reviews is definitely overblown and usually caught very swiftly. As for what the definitive solution is, if I knew I'd over it. I understand not wanting an improper review via QPQ, but I can say that in my case I've only been working on articles that I know will get a swift review. I see no reason to work on something that's going to sit for 6+ months, especially since by then I'll probably have forgotten about the GAN and moved on to other things (I know I'll get pinged that the review is open but that's not the point). I 100% disagree with those that see no issue with where things stand right now, that's just having your head in the sand, it's just a shame that a solution is not that simple. Wizardman 19:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no reason to expect the ratio to be constant, especially when the backlog is high. Do you have some graphs? Our issue at the moment is people who nominate a lot but have never reviewed; I can't see how this is related to source checks. —Kusma (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is certainly an extremely insightful point, but I'd want to see some evidence that this general trend is actually correct and a heck of a lot more evidence that is is caused by requiring spot checks. IAWW (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did a bit of preliminary research on the numbers at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report/Backlog archive and it does look like the drop below 20% well precedes the source review change, so I'll retract that portion of it. This would explain why the backlog keeps going up though. To use a hypothetical, when we get to 1000 nominations, if 200 of those were under review at a given point, I would be much less concerned about the state of GAN than if 75 were under review. A percentage graph of reviewed vs. total would be very interesting to see how it holds and to see if my point is accurate or not, that'll have to come from someone more well versed than myself at that kind of stuff though. Wizardman 20:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for this. As you say, the issue is we need more reviewers and it's not an easy problem to solve. IAWW (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a graph that shows the data Wizardman is talking about:

It does indeed look as if the percentage under review is going down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be the magic metric that explains the overall review rate and the very slow backlog increase? CMD (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remain skeptical that it isn't just saturation of our current reviewer capabilities (a proverbial Vmax if you will). The number of reviewers is finite and has always been outpaced by the number of noms, thus when the backlog balloons the percentage will go down. Maybe we've just finally hit the theoretical limit of what GA can handle at any given time. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Is there any way we can see the total number of unique reviewers per month? 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; here it is. I was surprised by the U-shape and cannot immediately think of an explanation for it. Over the last seven or eight years or so the number of unique reviewers seems to have grown at roughly the same pace as the backlog. I think one would also have to look at the average number of reviews per reviewer to pursue this, though. If you or anyone else would like the data so you can do your own analysis, send me a Wikipedia email and I'll send you a link to the xlsx. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by the U-shape and cannot immediately think of an explanation for it. - it looks to me like the number of reviewers was steadily trending downwards from 2014, levelled out a bit 2018-2019, and then jumped up in early 2020 (to no surprise) and levelled out around there. It jumped up again for 2024, which is the inexplicable part to me, but my main conclusion is that maybe we'd be hovering around 70 instead of around 110 without the 2020 jump. Maybe reviewing habits are influenced more by real life circumstances than anything Wikipedia changes or implements. Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty interesting to see that we have been able to increase the number of reviewers, but I assume we have more people who review a few articles instead of a handful of power reviewers who reviews hundreds. But in any case if we prioritise the reviewing of noms by reviewers, either by Mike's magic formula or by my crazy pledge idea, we should be able to quickly reduce wait times for everyone who contributes to the review system. —Kusma (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif, in 2024 we had three backlog drives in one year for the first time, and they were all advertised with watchlist notices. That would probably account for the spike. -- asilvering (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on WP-wide visibility. If GA is something promoted more in general, the awareness might attract more users to the project (though how many will review as well as nominate?…) And @Kusma: I think this relates to your overall proposal, the need for it to be explicitly visible and explained rather than implicit or only in notes? Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, is there any way to graph the average time between nomination and when the review is started? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007 The data is in the comment above: [1]. You can see the mean spiked in the late 2010s, and has remained steady at 60ish since (I think the unit is "days open"?). CMD (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite the same -- that shows the average time between nomination and when the review finished. Given that most of the time is spent waiting I doubt there would be much difference, though. I will see if I can generate the graph in the next day or so though I am going to be busy IRL. A couple of other editors now have the data and are welcome to respond before I get to it if they have the time, and I can give any other interested editors a link to the data if they want to look for themselves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is a bit navel-gazey to post on here, but if anyone is willing then I'd really appreciate some independent feedback on my most recent review (The Collected Poems of J.R.R. Tolkien). It's been playing on my mind, and in hindsight it may have been a good idea to get a second opinion while the review was still open. Even so, if I did make any mistakes/misjudgements, I'm keen to confirm this and correct them, rather than allowing self-doubt to put me off reviewing in future! Fair warning: a quick Ctrl+A puts the word count of the review page at ~8000 words (not helped by the fact I checked all the sources). I'm particularly keen to get feedback on my handling of criteria 2C, 2D, 3 and 4, so feel free to just look over these. If this isn't the right place for this kind of request, please feel free to revert my addition of this section, and/or talk to me/email me about any feedback or concerns. Thanks in advance! Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the right place, don't worry, and there's plenty of requests like this.

Re. crit 4, I think your open communication definitely helped. As a more subjective criteria, you're right to bring up concerns to be discussed and ideally quelled or addressed by the nominator. While your concerns may have been a bit out-of-scope, you approached discussion well to accept this. What I identify here is that beyond neutrality, your concerns seemed to creep more into broadness territory as that discussion went on. Perhaps in this case, your review could have been structured differently, to address a prose concern that touched on multiple GA criteria in one. But it resolved well, I think, and your crit 3 review does point to it.

Re. crit 3 - your 3A review is tied to the crit 4, same comment. As for 3B, I feel your first point is correct and well-explained - if I was encountering resistance from a nominator and being pointed to a lead summary as the excuse, I might have asked for another opinion or been a bit more insistent and then asked. What I feel is missing from your 3B review is that the article's reception section has four sub-sections, some of which are less standard and more topic-specific than others, and concerns stemming from this. E.g. reading this whole section, I am greatly questioning #Readership already (if the topic warrants its own section, how the topic is defined because it swings from fans' expectations to general readership potential, if it can possibly be balanced due to only having views from one person, why this one person's view on one topic of response is worth an entire decent-sized paragraph, and then there's the distinctly weak prose style and grammar...) - and then there's the question of if #Impact, a one-line main section, would be bundled into #Reception under this structure. "Is the #Reception section properly focused" is a question I feel hasn't been completely addressed, and I worry you may have been pressured into accepting it as-is. (I also feel, if discussed more, some of this information may have been given own sections, which could have addressed your crit 4 balance concerns, too.) As for the rest of the article, #Background sections often get addressed for focus - the appropriate level of context needed for the article topic - I'm not saying there's an issue with this, but it's not mentioned either way in your review and I might have done that (even just an acknowledgement that you think it meets the crit, as an often-questioned section).

Re. crit 2 - your 2C review is clear on why information cited to the book at least needs a reference to indicate this. I think the manner you addressed this is good. Your 2D review is clear on your potential concern, I think it can help doing some of the maths on 10% OVERCITE and all if there were any sources of particular concern, but it's not a necessary course of action.

And just because it sticks out when reading the article, your crit 6 review on the illustration is pretty good, but focusing more on 6B, a reminder that infoboxes and tables are "illustration" too, and where illustrations are in the article structure is relevant, and you've not commented on these. I know you asked for sample examples of poems in the #Content section, but e.g. the table not being contextualised or introduced could fall afoul of the "suitable captions" crit. It's also resulted in this section being sandwiched between two rather-large illustrations top and bottom - which there's no rule against, but how does it affect reading?

So, I guess you say the review is long - I think, because of your source review and explaining yourself well, things not to be discouraged - but I feel there may be things relevant to the specifics of the article that could have been acknowledged a bit more or differently. How you handled it, though, is good. Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this comprehensive feedback!! Re 6B, I actually didn't realise that infoboxes and tables are also counted as illustrations, so I'll include them in 6B going forward. On 2D, I think I'd wanted to include some source-specific percentages, but before I got round to calculating them it already became clear that this was going to be a point of disagreement, so I guess I de-prioritised it and then didn't end up circling back. In future, if I have similar concerns, I'll include the stats straight away! As for 3A and 4, I think I was struggling to isolate what the problems with § Reception were; I felt like it wasn't quite right but couldn't put my finger on exactly how it could/should be fixed, so it wasn't immediately clear which criterion was most relevant. Now that you've pointed it out, I think the sub-section headings definitely formed part of this, as the number of sub-sections was an automatic 3B WP:DETAIL flag in my mind, but I guess I didn't make the connection. I was also aware of not wanting to nitpick, so I think I filtered out some of my more minor concerns to ensure the broader issues were addressed; as you point out though, maybe this wasn't entirely successful! In future I think I'll try to raise all the issues individually, even if this is just a short mention; if any particular points trigger extensive discussion, I'll be more likely to consider getting a second opinion. This feedback has been really helpful, thank you so much again!! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pineapple Storage, agree with Kingsif things were handled well. I won't repeat their feedback. Just as a note, page numbers are very useful for long sources as you noted, however the precise formatting and the consistency of references is not that important. If the sources are clearly identifiable, with specific pointers if long/changeable (eg. page numbers, access dates), they can be in whatever format. Don't let self-doubt put you off reviewing, you can always ask questions here. CMD (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you so much! Just so I can be sure I understand, what prompted you to mention the page numbers and citation formatting? I hope I didn't say anything in the review that could be interpreted as mandating a certain citation format or total consistency, as that definitely wasn't my intention! I was just keen that page numbers be provided for long sources, especially when direct quotes are being attributed, but I'm keen to know if this wasn't clear. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I raised it as you said "References are consistently formatted" and there was some debate about rp vs sfn. A small point, and the keenness for page numbers is positive. CMD (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh okay that makes sense, thank you! I think all I meant by that was that the refs complied with MOS:FNNR (specifically Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article) and so the references weren't a problem for criterion 2A. I was also keen not to crash through WP:CITEVAR re page numbers, so I went with rp initially as that seemed less drastic/intrusive than changing a bunch of citations to sfn unilaterally! Thank you again for the feedback, and clarification. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is preferable for references to be consistently formatted, and helpful to note instances where they aren't, I think the longstanding consensus here is that consistency of formatting is not actually a GA requirement as long as the references are properly footnoted, collected into a reference section, and present enough reference metadata to clearly identify each reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes total sense, I will bear that in mind in future reviews. Thank you for letting me know! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do merge templates count as cleanup tags for the purpose of the cleanup banners quick fail criteria? I just noticed Firefox being nominated for Good Article, but there is an ongoing merge discussion on Firefox Lite that has not been closed yet. I will ping the nominator @D4n2016 so they will be aware of this concern. Gramix13 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orange banners all should count, for one reason or another. In this case, you can't sign off on broadness and focus until that discussion is resolved. Kingsif (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{merge}} is not an orange banner, and is not listed at WP:CLEANUPTAG. I don't think being proposed as a merge target is a quickfailable problem – indeed it's not really a problem at all! That said I agree that I wouldn't sign off on an article which is proposed as a merge target until the merge request is resolved. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination on Firefox was reverted as drive-by, but in case this happens again, while a nomination is under review, I think the right thing to do would be to put the review on hold (after resolving other issues) until the merge is rejected or performed. For a nomination that is not yet under review, I think it can just stay on the nomination list as usual. Technically, one could consider this to be an issue under #4 (stability), but it isn't really the same thing as the sort of edit war that #4 is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello can I request a quick checkup on the Consciousness page recent edits? there was a misleading impression given by citing one and only one dictionary definition, when an academic peer reviewed paper notes FORTY separate uses for the word (!) to correct that false impression (on the basis that prioritizing one definition risks prejudicing / biasing this rather high priority topic) I moved what was previously a "box quote" to become the very first paragraph. the rest of the initial paragraph clearly highlights the fact that there is a massive overlap due to the many uses, making the use of ONE dictionary definition as "authoritative" a worrisome oversight / concern. thank you Lkcl (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Three thoughts, one procedural and two substantive:
  1. Procedurally, as Consciousness is neither a good article nor a good article nominee, I don't know that this talkpage is the best place for this discussion
  2. Substantively, the current text of the lead paragraph looks like far too close paraphrasing of the source.
  3. On the general principle, I don't see any inherent issue with giving a single broad and simple definition at the beginning of the lead, even if philosophers argue over precise wording. Do many of these forty definitions actually dispute Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of a state or object, either internal to oneself or in one's external environment? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is down at the moment and I won't be able to work on it until some time this evening at the earliest. I'll post an update here when I find out what's going on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing this out there to see if there are any thoughts on this. Would it be reasonable for editors to add a notes to their GANs that say something to the effect of "I'm only looking for a basic evaluation of WP:GACR, don't worry about making this a heavy time investment"? Or if there might be some standardized way that people could indicate how much time they're hoping the reviewer will invest? Because I personally believe that a most-basic-level review should be the default, but absent that as a social norm, I'm wondering if it would be beneficial for individual nominators to indicate this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reverse might be better. We want the default to be the basic review, as you say, but stating that in the note might imply that you're looking for something other than the default. I think it would be better to save notes like that for cases where you would be happy to get a pre-FAC review, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely on board with this. I previously suggested it at the 2023 proposal drive and got shot down unanimously. The prevailing sentiment at the time was that it's the reviewer's decision how they do their review, and nominators can just shut up and take it or leave it. Hopefully we've come around somewhat. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've sometimes seen "Hoping to take this to FA" or similar, which indicates openness to a more detailed review. I don't think though that we can stop reviewers going deeper into GACR1 than is strictly necessary. CMD (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can, it's that we're not willing to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a practical proposal, and there won't be because GACR1 comes with value judgments. At any rate, reviewers doing a bit too much is not a key issue, unless the thought is that their X time spent on one review would be split across more reviews, which I'm not sure would hold. CMD (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point would be to encourage people to do reviews by giving them permission to more simply check the article against the criteria, rather than producing an FA-level extensive peer review, as has become the expected practice. half the excuse people give for not doing reviews is that they're time-consuming and difficult, so let's give people the go-ahead to dial it back to the lightweight process GAN was built to be ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying specifically that "this review can be short" reinforces that such reviews are not the norm. We are meant to have model review examples to convey expectations, I think someone raised a couple of very short ones in the past week which might qualify. CMD (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm agreeing with is what Mike suggested (and what I previously suggested at the suggestion drive), to make the short review the norm and the PR-style review NOT the norm. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd like to see examples and make us agree what is "short" and what is "PR-style". One problem with reviewing a review or with "model reviews" is that you'd need to look at the actual article to see whether the review is appropriate for the article. I do want to push back against "passes all criteria" three word reviews that do not actually show that the reviewer has engaged with the article. I do not need comments on the prose of every sentence, but we should expect that the reviewer has read every word of the article and done the relevant source checks, and some evidence of this is needed for me to accept a review as valid. —Kusma (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should oppose tagging short reviews as different to the norm. CMD (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to Mike saying I'm on board with this, I'm sorry I didn't put a bold oppose to TBUA's idea to make it crystal clear. Maybe you should put a bold support for mine and Mike's so we all know exactly who stands where. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you're conveying here. My replies have been to the posts above them. CMD (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You chastised me for not opposing TBUA's idea. I've been agreeing with Mike's suggestion, which is the flip side of TBUA's, so I suggested that bold votes might clear things up. Yes, I was being a little sarcastic, which is perhaps not the best look, but I dunno man, it just feels like every time you reply to me here we wind up in some bizarre back and forth about the precise definition of things and we get way out into the weeds like we are now. I'm not sure what I'm doing that we keep winding up here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You replied to my response to TBUA that your point was "giving them permission to more simply check the article against the criteria". That would be directly in line with the original TBUA proposal, as that would be what an "only looking for evaluation of the criteria" flag would do, especially as it was a reply suggesting it was a point to TBUA's proposal. The reverse that Mike Christie suggested would be giving permission to go beyond a simple criteria check. I don't understand how that's a precise definition difference, I'm looking over it again following your statement but still can't read how "giving them permission to more simply check the article against the criteria" is agreement for "looking for something other than the default", other than assuming the default is not a simple check. CMD (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I guess it seems bizarre to me that you'd interpret my remarks as endorsing the opposite of the position that I said I was endorsing and had also proposed two years ago. The lack of introspection in this response is really something to be honest. I offered an olive branch of trying to figure out why this keeps happening and your response is to ignore all of that and nitpick my words again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a sense check, PMC: your position was quite clear. I recommend disengaging – not sure what that's about but it's not a good use of your time or anyone else's screen space. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I simply read "giving them permission to more simply check the article against the criteria". The olive branch so to speak was received and in response to the question of why there was a movement into the weed I (tried to) explained why and how I read what I read as, looking for an explanation of why this interpretation was not correct and thus what the meaning was. That is figuring out why it is happening, so it's odd to hear that as nitpicking. It's clearly important to figure out clearly what people are suggesting, as the process has been stuck on multiple issues and as seen by the RfC there are many misinterpretations occurring. CMD (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We want the default to be the basic review, but it isn't. Having occasional notes requesting more in-depth reviews probably isn't going to have a significant effect on the unsolicited in-depth reviews. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should have a little bit more agreement on what is too little and what is too much for a review. One issue is that I am happy that people do any reviews at all and then do not want to criticise them for how they do their reviews. So maybe we need to do more reviews of reviews to clarify what is "most basic level". Looking at my own recent reviews, neither of Talk:The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets/GA1, Talk:Margarethe Hardegger/GA1, Talk:Robert Jacomb-Hood/GA1 or Talk:St Peter's Cathedral, Likoma/GA1 is asking for top level prose, but I am sometimes questioning broadness and have a short debate with the nominator before I can be convinced it is broad enough. Almost always I find some small misreadings of the sources, just like my reviewers usually find something where I made a mistake. So I don't really want to be significantly less thorough than this.

I think people who want every sentence of their prose examined in depth or who have a specific question about article improvement should probably go to Peer Review. GAN should be about reviewing against the criteria, but there should still be useful feedback for article creators to see where their article is weakest, especially for the more subjective criteria.

Back to the question: I don't really want to have two classes of reviews depending on what the nominator asks for. But that requires more rough agreement on what the one class of review should look like. —Kusma (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"some small misreadings of the sources" is more GACR2 (verifiability) rather than GACR1 (prose), so if someone has clearly carried out a spot check that should be accounted for. I note in Talk:Margarethe Hardegger/GA1 you note a lack of source in your prose review, which makes sense in terms of that's when you'd run into that WPV problem, but might be slightly unclear as a model review. I think Talk:St Peter's Cathedral, Likoma/GA1 is a nice review, very short prose review that specifically mentions the lead (GACR1b). CMD (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point of any of this, to be honest. At a basic level, we want more reviews (and hopefully more reviewers). I don't see how introducing more complexity as to what constitutes a review, different flavours of review, different flags indicating what level of review is desired, etc. etc. is going to help achieve that at all. Let people do the review that they're willing to do. As long as it addresses the GA criteria, that's all we should care about. If we want to provide some illustrations of 'what a good review looks like', I'm sure that'd be welcome, but I agree with Kusma that every review is different because it depends on the state of the article. YFB ¿ 11:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May seem like an elementary question but I would like to clarify if Moto G54 5G should be failed in case any controversy rises up. I believe it doesn't meet the GAN criteria as there's a lot of missing info, such as having different variations like a 'J' and an 'India' version. Thanks, Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 01:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Icepinner, I agree, personally I would quick-fail. GoldRomean (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Comparing the depth of content to e.g. Pixel 6 (a current Good Article), I think it's far enough from meeting WP:GACR #3a that it can be quickfailed per WP:GAFAIL #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks @Bgsu98, @David Eppstein, @GoldRomean! Even though I started this review, I'm just gonna fail it tbh as it's pretty far from meeting #3a, unless y'all disagree? Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 02:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the others above, David Eppstein's comparison to an existing GA is perhaps a helpful example to provide the nominator. CMD (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't think of any GAs that are that long anyway (only 200 words). But I do agree with the quick fail. JuniperChill (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at The Amazing Race 2, which has a body containing ~350 words of prose and is dominated by several lists. There have been discussions at WT:FLC over whether TV season pages are lists or articles, and there's a consensus that they're articles (see #What to do with season lists). This came about after pages like 30 Rock season 1 had 1500 words of prose but were going through FLC. I'd like to get ahead of this as I anticipate Bgsu98 will be writing a fair few of these (thankyou by the way).

As a related question, if these go through GAN, how would MOS:EMBED be evaluated? Thanks, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 19:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race 1 and The Amazing Race 5 have already undergone GA reviews. These certainly would not qualify as FL candidates. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:EMBED seems to hinge on whether the information is better as prose, and whether the lists strays into WP:NOTSTATS. The more obvious issue regarding the ~350 words is whether the article fails MOS:NOLEAD, especially as the current lead seems both oddly sectioned and not summarising the whole article. CMD (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing odd about the lead and it does summarize the whole article. Two different reviewers thought the (nearly identical) leads for The Amazing Race 1 and The Amazing Race 5 were fine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At another look following the edits made, the lead has unsourced filming dates, and doesn't cover the information in the Production section. CMD (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CMD. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I was reviewing an article. The nominator closed the article after a disagreement on whether or not my proposals were or were not within policy standards. Since the review, I've tagged the material I felt was not addressed, the nominator removed it suggesting it was "nonsense". The good article review process suggests that I should "Be sure the review page specifies what needed to be done to the article for it to meet the good article criteria." As the nominator and I disagreed here on what the course of action is, how should I address this? What should be the course of action on my half? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the GA review has been withdrawn, the GA criteria are not longer of concern here. Like any other content dispute, you should discuss it on the talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed with the editor on their talk page since they removed it with a sort of non-policy related reason, but they claimed this was just an attempt to stop the article from ever being able to pass a GA review. That's why I bring it up here as I've tried to discuss it on a talk page and they reiterated their issue from the ga review that "other pages have done this before with no issue". Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to try one of the methods noted at dispute resolution, since this seems to be intractable between just the two of you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I was thinking. Ok, thanks for the responses. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RFC: Adding featured and good content status to the tagline. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recently passed a very short GA review here. Courtesy ping to AmazingAce123 and a thank you for their time -- however, to be above board, I don't think the review quite met the requirements (particularly for a spot check). Would be grateful for additional input to either confirm or question the article's status. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this a spot check and I'm happy to confirm GA status. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 14:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]