Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Editing during a GA review
[edit]I have a situation where someone has been editing after I have started the GA review page on 29 September 2020. My sense is to reject the edits and edit the article as it was when I inserted the "Starts GA Review" 5 days ago. Can any admin or GA reviewer give me some advice about this situation? You can have a look here at the history and when I started the GA, here -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- The edits should stand, just review them, too. Part of the GA process is editing, and if it's not the nominator making edits there is a chance they're unaware. No reason to reject them purely because a review is ongoing. Kingsif (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion to merge
[edit]Noting for any watchers that there is a discussion to merge this guideline into WP:GANI and other GA project pages at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023. Ovinus (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
When is it impossible to ever get an article to GA status?
[edit]I see two passages in this guide that seem rather strange in tandem:
The good article criteria are achievable in almost any article…
and
Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria.
What would an article look like that genuinely had comprehensive coverage of the available sources and lacked OR, yet was unable to fulfill the GA criteria on the basis of verifiability or broadness? I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario like that which doesn't involve the reviewer personally feeling that the article's subject has aspects which must be covered in the article for it to be sufficiently comprehensive, yet acknowledging that RS covering those aspects simply aren't out there. Wouldn't that have to result from the reviewer's own OR? Are there other possibilities suggested by these passages that I'm overlooking? 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘🥑《 𔑪talk〗⇤ 05:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)