All
Good articles by
Doug Coldwell are [to be] delisted via a global process except for those articles where a reviewer has indicated an independent
GA reassessment will be opened and can vouch for/verify content of all sources, including offline sources
Users may remove any content Doug Coldwell added that is cited to an offline source
Users are encouraged to wait on stubbing articles until the GAR process has had sufficient time to complete.
This page outlines the process and timeline for the
Good article reassessment (GAR) of several hundred
Good articles (GAs). It describes items to check and consider when
stubbing content on those articles or attempting to assure GA status is retained.
The master list of articles to be reassessed for GA status can be found
here.
1. What kinds of concerns need to be re-evaluated in these GAs and other content by the same editor?
Be familiar with all of the
AN discussion and information in links to other discussions there. A
Contributor copyright investigation has been opened, and
presumptive deletion applies, but there may be other problems. One specific concern is the extensive use of old and offline sources that cannot be checked, and may be misrepresented. There may be:
Source-to-text integrity problems (either
verification or
original research) including misrepresentation of sources, inappropriate use of dated sources or non-independent sources
Claims from very old sources not backed by, or contradicted by, modern sources
Copyright issues in images uploaded by Doug Coldwell
Sources cited separately from the text they claim to represent, sometimes paragraphs away, which can conceal close paraphrasing or other forms of copyright problems.
Insertion of decidedly private materials, such as personal correspondences containing private information, inserted by Doug Coldwell; any inclusion of personal information should be
oversighted.
How do I evaluate and handle copyright issues?
Earwig is insufficient to detect too-close paraphrasing, copying from newspapers.com clippings (which Earwig cannot see), or content taken from offline sources. Content was often copied from sandbox to the article in one initial edit, which should be examined. Other diffs to examine are listed at the
3-page contributor copyright investigation.
If you find any of the copyright issues above, remove it and start a talk page discussion, but do not copy copyvio material to the talk page, as that creates another copyright problem.
If a copyvio is material to the content of the page, request
revision deletion using {{
copyvio-revdel}} after removing the copyvio. It is not always necessary to use revision deletions on
presumptive removals.
The templates {{
subst:CCI}} (specifically {{subst:CCI|name=20210315}} for this case), {{
subst:CCId}}, and {{
subst:cclean}} can be used on talk pages to denote presumptive removal/stubbing, presumptive deletion, and copyvio removal respectively (the latter can also be used in combined copyvio and presumptive removals).
If a page cannot be salvaged or presumptive deletion is expedient, replace its entire content with {{
subst:copyvio}} and follow the instructions on that template to list the page at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The page will likely be deleted after a week if it is not rewritten.
2. I passed one of these GA: what do I need to do?
If you believe the GA should be delisted, you don't need to do anything. Unless someone else plans to open a GAR independent from those processed en masse, the GA will be delisted automatically when the bot runs (see
#Implementation section).
If you want to improve the article anyway, see
#FAQ 3.
If you believe the GA status might be retained, and plan to initiate an independent GAR to that effect, see
#FAQ 3.
3. I believe one of these GAs can retain its GA status or be improved: what do I do?
To retain GA status, you need to be willing to open an independent GAR (according to the timeline at
#Implementation) and able to verify all content cited to online and offline sources (see
presumptive deletion). Please do not open a GAR until the
#Implementation process outlined below is complete.
Re-evaluate the content (see
#FAQ 1) and discuss any problems found on article talk
If you can locate sources online (for example, books at archive.org or articles at newspapers.com) please add them and verify content cited to them, or list them on the article talk page
If you have access to an offline source, you may be asked during the GAR to place a significant enough quote from that source on article talk that all of the following can be evaluated: source-to-text integrity, copyright violations including too-close-paraphrasing, and POV
If you plan to open an independent GAR (separate from those processed en masse), indicate so by listing the article at the
talk page here so the article will not be delisted in the bot group run
Open the independent GAR after the mass bot run (around February 23)
Once the GARs are completed, anyone can stub any article on the list not passing GAR by removing any content cited to inaccessible sources (see
PDEL, the
January 2023 AN discussion and
#FAQ 4), so in deciding whether to pursue a GAR, consider whether
broad coverage can be preserved based on accessible sources
Content that breaches
Wikipedia's copyright policies can be removed at any time from any article; the AN proposals do not supersede legal policy, although the AN encouraged editors to hold off on content in GAs until the GAR processes are in place. After February 20, any content cited to an offline source can be removed from the articles remaining on the
GA list (which will be culled to remove those that will undergo an independent GAR). It is suggested to place a list of the removed sources on article talk or in Further reading for future reference, and re-evaluate the remaining content, as there may still be
too-close-paraphrasing, source-to-text integrity problems, or POV remaining even after the article is stubbed (see
#FAQ 1).
5. I stubbed one of the articles on the master list but my edit was reverted.
If so, review the article talk page (see
#FAQ 1) and the
presumptive deletion policy and the
January 2023 AN consensus. For example, check the talk page to see if someone placed content from the offline source there. If your edits complied with all, discuss that on talk. If still necessary, bring the issue to admin attention at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
6. Can I resubmit to
GAN a delisted article on the list?
Any delisted GA is eligible to be resubmitted for GA consideration, but you should be certain that everything in
#FAQ 1 above has been considered, and that any content cited to offline content has been dealt with as explained.
If you want to opt out of these messages, or if you would like to receive messages even if you weren't one of the GA reviewers, you can add or remove yourself from
this list
Editors had until February 20 to indicate
on the talk page here the articles on which they planned to open an independent reassessment; those articles were removed from the
master list so the remainder on the list could be processed for delisting by bot
All
Good articles by
Doug Coldwell are [to be] delisted via a global process except for those articles where a reviewer has indicated an independent
GA reassessment will be opened and can vouch for/verify content of all sources, including offline sources
Users may remove any content Doug Coldwell added that is cited to an offline source
Users are encouraged to wait on stubbing articles until the GAR process has had sufficient time to complete.
This page outlines the process and timeline for the
Good article reassessment (GAR) of several hundred
Good articles (GAs). It describes items to check and consider when
stubbing content on those articles or attempting to assure GA status is retained.
The master list of articles to be reassessed for GA status can be found
here.
1. What kinds of concerns need to be re-evaluated in these GAs and other content by the same editor?
Be familiar with all of the
AN discussion and information in links to other discussions there. A
Contributor copyright investigation has been opened, and
presumptive deletion applies, but there may be other problems. One specific concern is the extensive use of old and offline sources that cannot be checked, and may be misrepresented. There may be:
Source-to-text integrity problems (either
verification or
original research) including misrepresentation of sources, inappropriate use of dated sources or non-independent sources
Claims from very old sources not backed by, or contradicted by, modern sources
Copyright issues in images uploaded by Doug Coldwell
Sources cited separately from the text they claim to represent, sometimes paragraphs away, which can conceal close paraphrasing or other forms of copyright problems.
Insertion of decidedly private materials, such as personal correspondences containing private information, inserted by Doug Coldwell; any inclusion of personal information should be
oversighted.
How do I evaluate and handle copyright issues?
Earwig is insufficient to detect too-close paraphrasing, copying from newspapers.com clippings (which Earwig cannot see), or content taken from offline sources. Content was often copied from sandbox to the article in one initial edit, which should be examined. Other diffs to examine are listed at the
3-page contributor copyright investigation.
If you find any of the copyright issues above, remove it and start a talk page discussion, but do not copy copyvio material to the talk page, as that creates another copyright problem.
If a copyvio is material to the content of the page, request
revision deletion using {{
copyvio-revdel}} after removing the copyvio. It is not always necessary to use revision deletions on
presumptive removals.
The templates {{
subst:CCI}} (specifically {{subst:CCI|name=20210315}} for this case), {{
subst:CCId}}, and {{
subst:cclean}} can be used on talk pages to denote presumptive removal/stubbing, presumptive deletion, and copyvio removal respectively (the latter can also be used in combined copyvio and presumptive removals).
If a page cannot be salvaged or presumptive deletion is expedient, replace its entire content with {{
subst:copyvio}} and follow the instructions on that template to list the page at
Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The page will likely be deleted after a week if it is not rewritten.
2. I passed one of these GA: what do I need to do?
If you believe the GA should be delisted, you don't need to do anything. Unless someone else plans to open a GAR independent from those processed en masse, the GA will be delisted automatically when the bot runs (see
#Implementation section).
If you want to improve the article anyway, see
#FAQ 3.
If you believe the GA status might be retained, and plan to initiate an independent GAR to that effect, see
#FAQ 3.
3. I believe one of these GAs can retain its GA status or be improved: what do I do?
To retain GA status, you need to be willing to open an independent GAR (according to the timeline at
#Implementation) and able to verify all content cited to online and offline sources (see
presumptive deletion). Please do not open a GAR until the
#Implementation process outlined below is complete.
Re-evaluate the content (see
#FAQ 1) and discuss any problems found on article talk
If you can locate sources online (for example, books at archive.org or articles at newspapers.com) please add them and verify content cited to them, or list them on the article talk page
If you have access to an offline source, you may be asked during the GAR to place a significant enough quote from that source on article talk that all of the following can be evaluated: source-to-text integrity, copyright violations including too-close-paraphrasing, and POV
If you plan to open an independent GAR (separate from those processed en masse), indicate so by listing the article at the
talk page here so the article will not be delisted in the bot group run
Open the independent GAR after the mass bot run (around February 23)
Once the GARs are completed, anyone can stub any article on the list not passing GAR by removing any content cited to inaccessible sources (see
PDEL, the
January 2023 AN discussion and
#FAQ 4), so in deciding whether to pursue a GAR, consider whether
broad coverage can be preserved based on accessible sources
Content that breaches
Wikipedia's copyright policies can be removed at any time from any article; the AN proposals do not supersede legal policy, although the AN encouraged editors to hold off on content in GAs until the GAR processes are in place. After February 20, any content cited to an offline source can be removed from the articles remaining on the
GA list (which will be culled to remove those that will undergo an independent GAR). It is suggested to place a list of the removed sources on article talk or in Further reading for future reference, and re-evaluate the remaining content, as there may still be
too-close-paraphrasing, source-to-text integrity problems, or POV remaining even after the article is stubbed (see
#FAQ 1).
5. I stubbed one of the articles on the master list but my edit was reverted.
If so, review the article talk page (see
#FAQ 1) and the
presumptive deletion policy and the
January 2023 AN consensus. For example, check the talk page to see if someone placed content from the offline source there. If your edits complied with all, discuss that on talk. If still necessary, bring the issue to admin attention at the
Administrators' noticeboard.
6. Can I resubmit to
GAN a delisted article on the list?
Any delisted GA is eligible to be resubmitted for GA consideration, but you should be certain that everything in
#FAQ 1 above has been considered, and that any content cited to offline content has been dealt with as explained.
If you want to opt out of these messages, or if you would like to receive messages even if you weren't one of the GA reviewers, you can add or remove yourself from
this list
Editors had until February 20 to indicate
on the talk page here the articles on which they planned to open an independent reassessment; those articles were removed from the
master list so the remainder on the list could be processed for delisting by bot