| Main | Criteria | Instructions | Nominations | July Backlog Drive | Mentorship | 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 Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.
 | See the Frequently asked questions (FAQ) |
 | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here. |
|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32 |
|
GA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Reassessment: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Nominations/Instructions: 1 Search archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
@ Broc and Eiga-Kevin2: Hi, I was about to nominate this newly-promoted GA for WP:DYK and found an interesting factoid in the Critical response subsection, until I spotted close paraphrasing on a few texts in that section:
| Article | Source |
|---|---|
| Tokyo-based film critic and journalist Mark Schilling wrote that Japanese critics frequently rebuke the films of writer-director Takashi Yamazaki, partly because "most are left-leaning" and view a few of his films, most notably the war drama The Eternal Zero (2013), as "nationalistic if not outright jingoistic". Schilling also mentioned that critic and historian Inuhiko Yomota was critical of Godzilla Minus One, calling it "dangerous". | Japanese critics, though, have long been hard on Yamazaki, one reason being that most are left-leaning and they see some of his films, especially his 2013 action drama “The Eternal Zero,” about WWII tokkōtai (kamikaze) pilots and based on a novel by rightist author Naoki Hyakuta, as nationalistic if not outright jingoistic.
Even “Godzilla Minus One,” in which a plucky band of civilians, including a disgraced former tokkōtai pilot, band together to save Japan from Godzilla, was called a “dangerous movie” by essayist and film historian Inuhiko Yomota in a Facebook post. |
| According to The Hollywood Reporter, American critics praised its drama, low-budgeted visual effects, and usage of kaiju as a metaphor for social commentary, with many favoring it over recent Hollywood productions. | U.S. critics have unanimously praised the film for the remarkable visual mileage Yamazaki got out of the project’s relatively small budget, as well as the story’s moving human drama and canonical use of the kaiju as a metaphor for social critique. [...] Godzilla Minus One seems to be earning especially favorable comparisons to Hollywood’s recent output of franchise sequels — |
| According to Dana Stevens, Ryunosuke Kamiki's performance is memorable because of his ability to convey the protagonist's vulnerability and emotional distress. | Kamiki’s anguished, vulnerable performance is one crucial part of what makes this protagonist so memorable, |
Broc, were you able to examine thoroughly the prose for close paraphrasing issues? Because there could be more in this section and elsewhere. The examples above are just from English-language sources, I think the Japanese ones should be examined further. If it turned out that the article contains even more CLOP issues, then it may need to undergo a GA reassessment. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy ( talk) 06:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Nineteen Ninety-Four guy thanks for pointing it out. I did run Earwig while doing the GA review and did not find major copyvio issues.
- Regarding the close paraphrasing you pointed out here:
- For the first sentence, I don't see the substantial similarity between the left and right column. The article uses direct quotes when needed and provides attribution to the author in-text.
- The other two sentences also provide clear attribution, in-text ("according to...") and with an in-line reference. However, I agree that they look rather similar to the original and could use direct quotes instead.
- Per
WP:CLOP,
Close paraphrasing without in-text attribution may constitute plagiarism
however, in all three cases you raised there is clear in-text attribution. If these are the only copyright issues, I don't see the need for GA reassessment. Broc ( talk) 08:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)- @
Broc: Ah, okay. I thought the texts and those of the sources looked nearly identical in structure and flow; missed that one CLOP policy. And I assume you checked the Japanese sources as well?
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (
talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (
talk)
08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @ Nineteen Ninety-Four guy all I did was reading the policy, don't consider me a copyright expert. If you think the issue needs expert judgment, please raise it at WP:CP.
- I did check a few Japanese sources as spot check; however, I don't speak Japanese myself, and the machine translation is often unreliable.
Broc (
talk)
09:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK thanks. I apologize for this inconvenience. I think that'll be all. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy ( talk) 09:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- @
Broc: Ah, okay. I thought the texts and those of the sources looked nearly identical in structure and flow; missed that one CLOP policy. And I assume you checked the Japanese sources as well?
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (
talk) 08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (
talk)
08:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
There is an ongoing chat about a few GA reviews that basic contain no recommendations for improvements....quick flyby passes if you will. I thought I would bring this up in a neutral manor focused on content before someone else does so in a more aggressive tone towards this good faith editor. The tone in the chat is very aggressive as if there's something else going on. @ PearlyGigs:
- Both the examples below do not seem egregious in passing of in my view....as in nothing outrageous outstanding.
Moxy🍁 01:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi,
Moxy. Thanks for the ping. I'm not sure what you mean by a chat board, unless it's the Taj Mahal topic above. I'm happy to have any of my reviews reconsidered as long as the feedback is constructive. Thanks again.
PearlyGigs (
talk)
09:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
-
PearlyGigs, these reviews are shorter than we tend to see, hence why they may appear to be flyby passes, although they are not a checklist so they clear that bar. One issue in both is that a reviewer should not just say "no evidence of original research or copyright issues", they are required to specific what sources were spotchecked to determine this. One mentions that most sources were inaccessible, which is fine, but it does imply there were one or two which could be checked.
CMD (
talk)
10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi,
CMD. In the first four reviews I did, including Meligalas and Talbot, I wasn't sure about how to report the findings and I followed what I saw in other reviews. I did check some citations at the time but didn't record them because other people don't. After Mike did the Norman Hunter review for me, however, I realised that the spot-checks need to be itemised and I've been doing that since. In fact, I've just completed the sample at
Talk:Suleiman of Germiyan/GA1. Hope this is okay. Thanks.
PearlyGigs (
talk)
11:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Spot checks are relatively new compared to other requirements, and so are still sometimes forgotten. That example is great, but note the spotchecks are also to check for plagiarism in addition to verification.
CMD (
talk)
11:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's right, but plagiarism stands out. Verification is not always so easy to determine. PearlyGigs ( talk) 12:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Spot checks are relatively new compared to other requirements, and so are still sometimes forgotten. That example is great, but note the spotchecks are also to check for plagiarism in addition to verification.
CMD (
talk)
11:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi,
CMD. In the first four reviews I did, including Meligalas and Talbot, I wasn't sure about how to report the findings and I followed what I saw in other reviews. I did check some citations at the time but didn't record them because other people don't. After Mike did the Norman Hunter review for me, however, I realised that the spot-checks need to be itemised and I've been doing that since. In fact, I've just completed the sample at
Talk:Suleiman of Germiyan/GA1. Hope this is okay. Thanks.
PearlyGigs (
talk)
11:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
-
PearlyGigs, these reviews are shorter than we tend to see, hence why they may appear to be flyby passes, although they are not a checklist so they clear that bar. One issue in both is that a reviewer should not just say "no evidence of original research or copyright issues", they are required to specific what sources were spotchecked to determine this. One mentions that most sources were inaccessible, which is fine, but it does imply there were one or two which could be checked.
CMD (
talk)
10:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Kzyx is a relatively new editor and hasn't been editing since 24 June. The page itself isn't yet at GA standards. What shall I do with the review? ( Talk:Fu Wuji/GA1) 141 Pr -\ contribs/- 20:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fail it if you don't feel the article doesn't meet the criteria and there is no improvement. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that Breonna Taylor just got nominated for GA and then quickpassed. Both users here are relatively new editors; those being Nickscoby, the nominator, and DeadlyRampage26, the reviewer.
Obviously, we need more GANs and GANs reviewers and I'm happy when new people get into it - but there's certain articles that need more care with the review, especially for controversial or complex subjects; and we need very experienced reviewers for a nominator's first time approaching a GA and vice versa. There is, notably, no evidence that there was a source spot check of any sort performed.
The article is certainly in a good shape for a topic like this, but I feel like this is one really need experienced folks to peer over before we can count this as a proper GA. Generalissima ( talk) (it/she) 01:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I posted at DR26's user talk page. I agree the review had some problems, as does the article (at which I'm involved, btw).
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
01:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm happy to address problems that you see with the article. Thanks. Nickscoby ( talk) 02:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict) Talk:Breonna Taylor/GA1, no OR/copyvio source checks. (I am surprised this is a separate article, but that is not a GA issue.) CMD ( talk) 02:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh OK I understand. I am new to this and was matching what I saw with the criteria but I think that if you think a more in depth review is required that does make sense
DeadlyRampage26 (
talk)
02:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi DeadlyRampage26, thanks for your review. I actually appreciated how you went through each criteria, the issue here is more interpretation than depth. On the source issue mentioned on your talkpage, there are a number of unsourced areas in the body (ie. not the WP:LEAD), which we would generally pick up. Regarding what I mentioned above, GACR2 cannot be met without seeing if the sources do actually support the article and there isn't any copying. Now, it is definitely not necessary to go through and check every source, but reviewers should spot check a few to make sure. For example, the first sentence of Adult life is "In 2011, Taylor attended the University of Kentucky (Lexington) as a first-generation college student and returned to Louisville after one year", supported by this source. That source does support attendance at the University of Kentucky in 2011, but does not seem to support the claim of being a first-generation student or a return to Louisville. CMD ( talk) 02:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article review circles is still promising, but I notice that its coordinator User:GMH Melbourne has been less active lately. If I can make a suggestion, we should probably add one or two more coordinators, and then maybe add a link to it somewhere so people familiar with both nominating and reviewing can find it. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 08:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I had been thinking about opening a discussion here as well. I think the process has gotten off to a great start: 12 nominees received reviews in the past month as part of the three "test runs". I support integrating it into the wider GAN process and adding links to it where relevant. As for additional coordinators,
PCN02WPS has shown some interest on the talk page. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh)
15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd also support integration into the GAN process as a whole. I'm happy to hop on as another coordinator to help ease things along if people are good with that. Might go ahead and start up another circle soon to keep the number of waiting articles on the lower side.
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs)
18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- PCN02WPS you have my endorsement at least to boldly add yourself to the coordinators list. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 00:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd also support integration into the GAN process as a whole. I'm happy to hop on as another coordinator to help ease things along if people are good with that. Might go ahead and start up another circle soon to keep the number of waiting articles on the lower side.
PCN02WPS (
talk |
contribs)
18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Can someone check my review for
Communism in the Philippines, any help will be appreciated!
🍗TheNugg
eteer🍗
03:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
-
TheNuggeteer This is a pretty good review, but I think you didn't need to fail it; unless it'd be require a complete rewrite of the article or something very difficult to reasonably do in a few days, it's best to put it on hold and then fail it after 7 days if the changes haven't been made.
Generalissima (
talk) (it/she)
03:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, I fixed the problem.
🍗TheNugg eteer🍗04:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, I fixed the problem.
- Hi TheNuggeteer, just as a note that you may want to refer to sources with something a bit easier to identify than "Source NUMBER", as a slight copyediting of the article or the addition or removal of sources will throw that right off. Alternatively, you can add a specific article version ID to the review so that the numbers will all be the same. On images, do check the licences. (It appears all four are public domain in this case.) Best,
CMD (
talk)
03:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you both Generalissima and Chipmunkdavis for your response, CMD, I have added a note stating the revision.
🍗TheNugg eteer🍗04:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you both Generalissima and Chipmunkdavis for your response, CMD, I have added a note stating the revision.
- I saw that the nomination was a drive-by one, with FloridaMan21 adding a little, what should I do in this case?
🍗TheNugg eteer🍗04:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Can someone check another review for
2022 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar election, any help will be appreciated!
🍗TheNugg
eteer🍗
09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Important note
TheNuggeteer, the
WP:LEAD does not need its own sources. What is important for the lead is that it is a summary of the body (ie. not have anything significant that isn't in the body), the citations should appear in the body for said information.
CMD (
talk)
09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Removed the 'lead' part, thank you for your response!
🍗TheNugg eteer🍗09:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)- @ TheNuggeteer, that's two unnecessary fails you've done now in short order. Quickfails are really intended for articles that are badly beneath the GACR, not just articles that are merely imperfect. Significantly, articles are not expected to be comprehensive at the GA level, just "broad". You defend your fail of the above article by arguing that it's missing a section on campaigning, but it's not required to have this section (and doubly so if the sourcing doesn't support having such a section). I would recommend holding off and waiting for responses rather than failing nominations so quickly in the future. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Removed the 'lead' part, thank you for your response!
- I don't get why you're treating GA reviewing as if you're grinding a video game, TheNuggeteer. In the past day, you have started three GA reviews and taken a pretty slapdash approach to completing them. Perhaps you have not read the reviewing instructions? If you have, I would recommend rereading WP:GAN/I#R3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I would appreciate guidance about this review. I'm happy to re-nominate, I'm just unsure of the correct way forward. I've sorted most of the comments that I can but there were a few things that I disagreed with and would have preferred the opportunity to respond rather than having it failed. I have left comments on the review page about the points raised. Tagging the review so they are aware ( TheNuggeteer). Stevie fae Scotland ( talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)