Wikipedia:Good article help

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
Welcome to the Good Article Help Desk
Shortcut:
  • This page is for asking questions relating to a Good article you have nominated or are reviewing
  • For suggestions relating to the Good article process ask at the nominations talk page
  • For suggestions relating to changes or additions to the Good article criteria ask at the criteria talk page
Search or read Frequently Asked Questions
Search the Good article archives
Mentors

The following is a list of users who have volunteered to act as mentors to Good article reviewers. New reviewers are strongly encouraged to contact one of the editors below on their user talk page for assistance and advice on using the Good article nominations process, applying the Good article criteria, and producing a good review. All reviewers are welcome to contact mentors for advice on individual issues.

Mentor list

Mentors often specialize in reviewing articles within a particular area. They also may have expertise in a particular aspect of the Good article process. This is indicated after their user names below. If you wish to mentor new reviewers please add your name to the list. Add name

  1. Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) – Can assist with issues concerning images, inline citations/references, GA sweeps, and GA nominations general questions. A list of the reviews I have performed can be seen at my GA subpage.
  2. bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) – Mostly experienced with CVG and organism GAs, but I'm pretty sure I can handle image, citation, and general questions about GAN.
  3. Yamanbaiia (talk · contribs) – Manual of Style enthusiast.
  4. Juliancolton (talk · contribs) – I can help with pretty much anything related to the GA process.
  5. OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) – Sweeps, references, weasel words, and jargon words
  6. Ceranthor (talk · contribs) – I'll do anything, as long as it is geography, animals, science, etc.
  7. Majoreditor (talk · contribs) – I am happy to help with most any type of review.
  8. Sanguis Sanies (talk · contribs) – Anything Film and Television related, I'll take stab at anything else: the two GA articles I helped were both Law related.
  9. Mm40 (talk · contribs) – Quality of prose and reference formatting are strong points in my reviews. History, arts, or sports related articles, see here for my reviews.
  10. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) – anything not pop culture or sports is probably fair game for me.
  11. Arsenikk (talk · contribs) – Transport (my field of excellence), video games, economics, business, politics, government, geography, places and engineering; I'm better at content, referencing, images, aesthetics and MOS than prose.
  12. Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) – Art, Architecture, Theatre, Film, most topics really, but I tend to avoid American sports, TV shows and contemporary pop music.
  13. Aircorn (talk · contribs) Willing to help out in most topics.
  14. Dom497 (talk · contribs) I can help with just about everything.
  15. Hahc21 (talk · contribs) – I love to help, mostly on inline citations, referencing and original research. Mainly on music and video game related articles.
  16. Yash! (talk · contribs) - I've reviewed 50+ Good article nominations and have helped promote 8 articles to GA status. I can help while dealing with references, fixing MoS, expanding prose, getting facts accurate, etc. I can generally assist at any topic but particularly, articles falling in the categories of geography, music, history, sports, India, Pakistan, Green Day are my favorites.
  17. Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) - I've improved 30 articles to Good article status and reviewed over 60. I'm particularly keen on music, albums and places/geography articles.
Guides

Before reviewing your first Good article you should familiarise yourself with the Good article criteria. You may also wish to read the reviewing Good articles guideline and an essay on what the Good article criteria are not.

Reviewing guides from individual editors

Different reviewers have slightly different approaches when conducting reviews and some have outlined theirs below. If you have experience with reviewing and wish to write your own guideline feel free to add it. Add review

  1. Ealdgyth's cheatsheet;
  2. Joopercooper's guide;
  3. Wizardman's guide;
  4. Yash's list of fixes and tools;

Criterion 6[edit]

I am currently reviewing the article on Vladimir Lenin, and am trying to get to grips with the rules on images. I wonder if anyone can give me any pointers.

As far as I can tell, images in GAs have to meet one of three requirements:

  1. They are released under a free license, or
  2. They are in the public domain in the USA, or
  3. They are considered to be fair use and have a fair-use rationale on the file page.

So far, so good. (At least, so long as I am understanding the requirements correctly.)

I am having more trouble, however, with identifying whether some of the images are either a) in copyright, and therefore need a fair-use rationale or b) public domain in the USA.

About half of the images are tagged as public domain in the US, or are released under a free license, so they're okay. Of the remainder, one is "not an object of copyright" according to Russian law; twelve are tagged as being Public Domain in author's life+70 countries, but without anything discussing their copyright status in the US (of those, ten were published before 1923, one after, and one probably before but the information is not available); and one I don't even know where to begin.

I assume that the rouble is fine, as the Russian government doesn't claim copyright over it, but I'm totally confused about the others. So I suppose my questions are:

  • How can I tell which ones are PD in the USA? (Or can anyone who actually understands these things tell me?)
  • If they are public domain in the USA, are they okay as-is or does this information need to be added to their pages if they are to be included in a Good Article? And if so, how?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Arsenikk, Nehrams2020, and Bibliomaniac15: pinging users registered as GA mentors who mention being able to help with images. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

LivingBot missed a recent GA listing[edit]

If I follow correctly, near the top of WP:GA, the "Recently listed good articles" are updated by User:Jarry1250's User:LivingBot at WP:Good articles/recent. For some reason, it seems to have completely missed the OPEC article that was promoted to GA yesterday (the morning of April 10). If anyone understands how the process works, was there a human procedure that got overlooked somehow, or was the bot malfunctioning? —Patrug (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like something has gone wrong somewhere; Talk:OPEC says that it was listed as a good article on April 10 2014, despite the fact that the GA review quite clearly happened in 2016... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, good catch. I just corrected the reviewer's typo. We'll see if the bot revisits. —Patrug (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Five articles got added in the same 15 minutes, which triggered the bot to think something was wrong and skip the edit.
You can go ahead and add them manually though if you want though :) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 20:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, Harry. It looks like 3 of those 5 were posted simultaneously by the same reviewer, which probably isn't such a rare occurrence. Maybe revise the bot to consider something wrong only if 5 different reviewers post within 15min? And if it does skip an edit, have it post an alerting message somewhere that you or another human can take a closer look? —Patrug (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't get that many complaints so presumably it doesn't happen that often :) I cba programming the process you describe, but since the script has been stable for yonks, it makes sense to bump the limit slightly. Now, simultaneous adding of up to 5 articles will work. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This should help a bit, and I've documented it on Wikipedia talk:Good articles/recent so it'll seem less of a "bug" and more of a "feature" ;-) —Patrug (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ga failed review[edit]

Hello there. I believe I was unfair during a GA review I just conducted and I failed per say review. Therefore I would like to revert my edit and place it on hold so that the nominator could carry on with the review. If that is possible of course, otherwise a more experienced editor could tell me what to do in these situations. Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi MarioSoulTruthFan, I assume you are referring to Talk:I Will Possess Your Heart/GA1, nominated by Antony-22. Thank-you for reviewing and I'm sorry you had a bit of trouble; Antony-22, thank-you for nominating. Since the article has already been failed and the bot has already removed the nomination from the WP:GAN list, the GA1 review is finished. There is no penelty or harm in starting a new review, so I reccomend that a new review immediately commence after the nominator creates a new GA2 nomination by following the usual instructions. Antony-22, why don't you go ahead and nominate today to get it back on the WP:GAN list. MarioSoulTruthFan, you could then pick it up for review today and start a new review, adding notes to the GA2 referring to the GA1 page if necessary. Or if Antony-22 would rather, it could sit on the GAN list and wait for a different reviewer; please find out if that is their preference. Let me know if you need my help answering specific questions about reviewing. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 12:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Prhartcom, no that was not the nomination, it was Talk:Bedtime Story (Madonna song)/GA1 nominated by User:IndianBio. It was bad judgment on my behalf while reviewing. The one you raised I was concise with what I wanted and intended. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I would rather nominate it later and wait for a different reviewer thanks. —IB [ Poke ] 13:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
MarioSoulTruthFan, some advice: On your next review, do not quick fail unless you are dealing with a nominator that does not intend to respond to your review, because of the bad feelings quick fail tends to cause. If the nominator is responsive, I would allow them a little time to address the issues you raise, as they may actually solve every issue you raise and improve the article according to the criteria. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Prhartcom for the reply and for the advice I will take that into consideration on my next reviews. @IndianBio: once more I'm truly sorry and I understand why you might want to wait for another reviewer. Hopefully this won't cause bad blood between us. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

GA bot malfunction?[edit]

I have selected an article for review, Stand Up for Love, I'm planning to do this review over the weekend. However, the bot is not assuming me as a reviewer on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Songs page. Anyway to fix this?

Thank you in advance, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Some how it was sorted out. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Jason Isaacs[edit]

I need help here. I know very little about GA's. However, I noticed at the Talk page that Jason Isaacs is tagged with "GA"-class status. However, there's no {{good article}} tag at the actual article, and the article has had long-term maintenance tags added. There's also no 'GA' "history" to follow at the Talk page, so I can't figure out when the article was originally promoted to GA, or whether it's even been "demoted" from GA. Any chance somebody can help me out here?... I almost tried to have the article individually "assessed", but I'm pretty ignorant of even that process, so I aborted that. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

IJBall, thanks for pointing this one out. I found this edit from nearly a decade ago where an editor added the first "revised article rating" because it had just been promoted to GA here. it was reassessed in January 24, 2008 but was kept GA. I notice the article is not listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama. I see that it was reassessed again here Talk:Jason Isaacs/GA1 and stripped of its GA here. It was removed from the rolls then, but they forgot to change the class values. Please go ahead and change them to whatever you believe is correct (possibly "C"). —Prhartcom♥ 06:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: Thank you! That was enormously helpful – with the info you have provided, I was able to add an {{Article history}} to the Talk:Jason Isaacs (please feel free to correct or add to it if I've done anything wrong or missed anything!...), and have demoted the article to C-class as you suggested. This is one of those articles that's on my radar for a "renovating" back to GA-status project (and learn the "GA process") if I can find the time to put the work into it... Thanks again! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
IJBall, you're likely the one, then, that is destined to bring new sources and new prose to this article, then nominate it for GAN and see it through to GA. I suggest you start just one small corner of it now; the rest will come. All the best, —Prhartcom♥ 03:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: It is literally on my mental "To Do" list to get several articles at least to "B-class" this summer (as I've never done that before), and I think Jason Isaacs is actually at the top of my mental list. If I get it to "B-class", I may then try for WP:GA. But I likely won't get to that before mid-July, when one of my two summer jobs finishes up... Face-wink.svg --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Understood; there's never a deadline (and hopefully no one will beat you to it). Oh, I really wouldn't bother with B, go straight for GA. Start with one new source; it think you'll be very happy with your own result. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 03:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_help&oldid=727618651"