Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Report

Yet another reason why the Bot is just great!

From the May 26, 2007 update:

Music and musicians (8): Oldest: Cher

Difference?

What's the difference between Oldest nominations and Old nominations? The former is only 10, but it doesn't list the oldest article according to the latter. Lara Love 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, Oldest noms includes also noms under review and on hold. Cheers, PrinceGloria 13:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that, but when I checked, both include articles under review/on hold and articles still waiting. Lara Love 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this discussion earlier. The Oldest nominations section lists the ten oldest nominations, in which no activity (placed on hold, marked under review or requested a 2nd opinion) has taken place. The old nominations section in the exceptions report lists all nominations that are 30 days old or older, regardless of any activity that has taken place. I've updated the bot to output a better description for these sections; hope this clears it up! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 07:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another distinction that I forgot to mention: The old nominations section in the exceptions report may be empty (if there are no nominations 30+ days old), but as long as there are any unreviewed nominations, there will be something in the Oldest nominations section. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That makes sense. Lara❤Love 19:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot issues?

Have these reports stopped running? The last one was Sept 30, and it's now Oct 2. Dr. Cash 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was running, but someone removed one of the special comments the bot uses to parse the page, so it couldn't do so. I've readded the comments and ran the bot manually. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of nominations

It would be really useful to have some idea how many articles are getting nominated. Could StatisticianBot count how many new nominations there are each day, and produce a cumulative? I realise it won't be exact because an article could get nominated and reviewed in 1 day, but over time it would be a good gauge of the demand growth on the GAN process. Geometry guy 18:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do this, but it'll take at least a few days to get working, depending on the amount of time I have. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed! Geometry guy 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are quite busy, but if you do get a moment, could you add this page to Category:WikiProject Good articles? Geometry guy 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, sorry, I have had no time lately to even start adding this task. I haven't forgotten, and will do it as soon as I can. I have added the category to the page, though. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graph

Here's a graph of the backlog since the beginning of June. The upper curve is the number of listed articles at GAN and the lower curve is the number without a reviewer. The approximate trend of the number of listed articles, excluding the effects of the summer 2007 backlog elimination drive is shown by a dotted line (note this is not a statistical fit). It suggests steady growth of the backlog by 15-20 articles per month.

A rather startling feature is the rapid "bounce-back" after the backlog elimination drive. Geometry guy 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I update this graph from time to time. Geometry guy 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Charlie glitch

Not sure why, but the bot thinks the Hurricane Charlie article was listed in 1970. For some reason it isn't reading the date right, I looked at the nom and didn't see anything out of the ordinary. --Holderca1^talk 18:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see this earlier. It seems that the problem was that the Hurricane Charlie nomination had a timestamp of "24:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)", which obviously isn't a valid date. The bot tried to parse it but couldn't, hence the wrong timestamp. The bot can't take the dates as is because it needs to process the date for sorting oldest noms or determining if an on hold is overdue, for example. I added a check to the bot and now if it finds a bad date, it will add an entry to the malformed nominations list. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold figures

Just a general note to warn editors that the information about articles on hold etc., is no longer accurate because many editors are using a different template system to indicate holds, which is not recognised by StatisticianBot. Geometry guy 13:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fixed now, let me know if you encounter any problems. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks for the fix! (I keep a pretty small watchlist!) Geometry guy 14:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania on hold, but it still appears in the list - have I made a mistake somewhere? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer statistics?

Are reviewer statistics tracked? Eg, how many GANs an editor has reviewed, their outcomes, how timely the review was completed, how long holds lasted, outcomes after holds, etc. Does holding lead to better articles? --Una Smith (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that that is currently tracked, to my knowledge, is by humans. -–Drilnoth (T • C) 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot issues

I'm sorry that the bot hasn't updated this page in a few days; it appears that changes to mediawiki have made the bot's edits not make it through for some reason. I'm working on this issue and hope to have it fixed within the next couple days or so. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 14:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that articles I have passed or failed are still listed as un-reviewed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the bot apparently hasn't worked for nearly a month and a half, perhaps the page text should be updated so that it doesn't say the bot updates every day. (I've never visited this page before today and was rather confused that none of the links I was clicking on were actually listed on the Nominees page.) Propaniac (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current issues

The bot doesn't seem to have picked up the fact that the article Bill Harry is under review and is currently on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot query

No updfate at 9:00am 7 April. has the bot fallen over? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still top of the list (Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010) - well done. Pyrotec (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links under Exception report

Is it possible to get a link to the review under ==Exception reports==? I'd rather click on "San Diego" and end up at talk:San Diego/GA1 than at the section of GAN that includes the listing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reports by page views

Would it make sense to run a report with something like the top 20 unreviewed GAN articles ranked by number of page views? Some articles deal with a very narrow subject. It may be useful to give reviewers a tool to focus on the most viewed articles. Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned review

G'day all, Talk:Toluid Civil War/GA1 has been abandoned by the erstwhile reviewer. How do we re-boot? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to ask on WT:GAN whether someone wants to take it over. That might get a volunteer. If not, we can just put it back into the reviewing pool and wait for someone to pick it up fresh. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Messi just signed for PSG and is an argentinian GOAT. 185.70.90.36 (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting these changes to the Report

Hello, Wugapodes, I hope you are well. I humbly request the following (I hope) simple changes to the Report:

Add a TOC to the top of the report, under the new Key. I already created it in this sandbox (see below).
Delete the carriage return after the words "... that have had no activity" to join the rest "(placed on hold ..." on the same line. (The italicize formatting is currently broken because of this carriage return.)
For the Old nominations section, delete 400 lines like this: Change the programming from reporting over 30 days to instead report over 90 days (and change header from displaying "30 days" to "90 days"), which still leaves over 100 lines. This will help the Report considerably; people can't manage more than that.
For the Nominators with multiple nominations header title, change header from level 3 to header level 2, as these are not an exception. (The new TOC is depending on this change as well.) So, change to: "== Nominators with multiple nominations =="
For the Malformed nominations, if there are none, please print the line "None."

This shows what it will look like after the changes are made:

Thank you! Let me know your thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, I'll take a look tonight and get you a timeline. — Wug·a·po·des 01:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom It looks like (2) through (5) will require changing 8 lines of code. (1) can be done just by adding what you want to Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Report/top and then adding __TOC__ where ever you want the default table of contents. I've blocked an hour Friday evening to actually make the changes, and 1,2, 4, and 5 could go live that day. I would want some wider discussion on (3) before switching over. This is nominally a statistical page, and going from reporting a backlog when over 1 month to a backlog when over 3 months would be a major change to the metric we've reported for over 18 years. That's not a "no" on (3), but I would like some agreement on a reason for it other than "makes the bad number smaller".

My two cents on (3), I think reviews just take longer these days and maybe 30 days is too short now given growth in nominations and reduction in volunteer capacity. The backlog growth seems to be in completing the review not starting it. In 2019 the number of unreviewed noms hovered around 500 with about 100 on review or hold at a given time. In 2024 and early 2025 the number of unreviewed noms is still around 500 but the number on review or hold now tends to be around 150. So reviews just seem to take longer these days. I haven't really looked into the cause, and it might not be something we want to ignore. It could be slow reviewers, slow responses to reviews, reviewers giving more time for editors to respond, or some combination. I think the GAN regulars would have a better sense of what's going on and whether giving more time before reporting a backlog entry would be a good trade-off. — Wug·a·po·des 06:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wugapodes. I am also a programmer and I was hoping this would not be too much for you; I am glad to hear your positive thoughts. I have raised that one issue to the community. Prhartcom (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so never mind about #3, since it doesn't look like people agree to it. But hopefully we are still good to go with the others. I didn't want to add the magic word TOC to the /top page as it would add the level 3 headers and take up too much room, but instead use the Contents as you see in the sandbox. I could be the one to make that edit if you'd like. Prhartcom (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom Thanks for starting the discussion. Maybe we could look into the stats more some day, but for now I'll hold off on #3. For 2, 4, and 5 see Special:Permalink/1281725872. I'll set up a recurring test run for the next week. I'm scared something broke when I went diving into the spaghetti code, plus it will give me time to make a few other improvements for maintainability. You can test #1 over at User:Wugapodes/GANReportBotTest/top — Wug·a·po·des 02:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not spaghetti code; at least fettuccine code! Good luck on the other improvements; sounds like a worthy task. The four changes look good. I added the /top and all looks good. Prhartcom (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wugapodes, I hope all is going well. Your four changes look good. I added the /top and all looks good. Please let me know when you are ready to implement this. Prhartcom (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prhartcom: I made the change on toolforge, so the changes should be live in the next report tomorrow 01:00 UTC. Let me know if anything looks wrong. The other changes will take a bit longer, mostly linting and testing so future changes don't need a week of live tests to feel confident nothing broke. — Wug·a·po·des 02:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, looks great, sir! Small changes, but nice ones, and I'm glad it wasn't too difficult for you. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]