Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used for the review and improvement of good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.
User scripts for GAR:
|
All users are welcome to contribute to the good article reassessment process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Where possible, editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes.
Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article.
Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles without prejudice if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.
This section could be made collapsible so that the actual reviews are right up front.
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, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, |
To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. These need to be notified manually.
Manual opening steps
|
---|
|
To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
Manual closing steps
|
---|
|
This is brand new and will likely need some tweaking. Because delisted articles can easily be renominated, I think a time limit should be put on disputing a GAR - I've written within a week of closure but am open to changing it.
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process used for the review and improvement of good articles (GAs) that may no longer meet the good article criteria (GACR). GAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.
User scripts for GAR:
|
All users are welcome to contribute to the good article reassessment process, regardless of whether they were involved with the initial nomination. Where possible, editors should prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting. Reassessments are listed for discussion below and are concluded according to consensus. Good article reassessment is not a peer review process; for that use peer review. Content disputes on GAs should be resolved through normal dispute resolution processes.
Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article.
Potential candidates for reassessment can be found on the cleanup listing. Delisted good articles can be renominated as good articles without prejudice if editors believe they have resolved the issues that led to the delist.
This section could be made collapsible so that the actual reviews are right up front.
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, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, |
To open a good article reassessment, use the GAR-helper script on the article. Detail your reasons for reassessing the article and save the page. Your rationale must specify how you believe the article does not meet the good article criteria. GARs whose rationale does not include the GACR may be speedily closed. The user script does not notify major contributors or relevant WikiProjects. These need to be notified manually.
Manual opening steps
|
---|
|
To close a discussion, use the GANReviewTool script on the reassessment page of the article and explain the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken).
Manual closing steps
|
---|
|
This is brand new and will likely need some tweaking. Because delisted articles can easily be renominated, I think a time limit should be put on disputing a GAR - I've written within a week of closure but am open to changing it.