First, I think we need some more eyes here. I've brought a couple issues here and they were decided by three people (and I was one of them). For instance, Jimmy Wales closed with 1.5 votes for delisting. Speedrun closed 2-1 in favor of delisting (no consensus). We need to get editors here so we can get a better, more thorough review.
Second, I think that GAR should model itself more closely along WP:FAR. For instnace, I commented on the Mario GBR that it lacked citations in the "Relations" section. That was since fixed up, but my comment was still considered a "delist" vote when the closer of the GAR delisted Mario at Talk:Mario. I think we need to separate it out - review, then voting, similar to how WP:FAR does it. Hbdragon88 04:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it possuble to archive an article up for review if it is nominated for FAC. I am planning of put the Roman-Spartan War up for FAC and I don't think that it should be on FAC and GA/R at the same time. Could someone please tell me. Thanks. Kyriakos 04:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Copied from review of The Beatles on main page;
I would advise folk that... I wrote a piece at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) entitled WP:FAR and WP:GAR Are The Enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. I was quite rude, in the first comment, about the review process and the people who do it. I did it to elicit a greater reaction, and have since apologised for language and given my rationale. I stand by the general thrust of my comments. Reviewers here may wish to make their representations.
I mention it as perhaps some reviewers have not read the Beatles review. LessHeard vanU 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we archive some of the GARs on the page at the moment? The page is getting a bit clogged, but I noticed some of the articles have already had their GA status removed which means their specific GAR discussion needs archival. LuciferMorgan 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying Homestarmy. Most of the GAs I'm listing clearly fail 2. b. for example, and couldn't get passed in their current state today. LuciferMorgan 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The article pages of the pages above state that the articles do not sufficiently cite their sources. Should that disqualify them from GA status? John Carter 23:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
{{ Process header blue}} could be a good substitute for the ever-expanding archives box on the article page... -- Ling.Nut 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Can a few people weigh in on this GAR please? The reasons the failer has given for failing this one are just plain ludicrous to be frank, and people need to give their thoughts on the article. If it passes the criteria then feel free to say this at the GAR, or if it doesn't, then can you please give a specific area that needs addressing to meet GAR? The problem is the discussion hasn't really taken off, and I'm alarmed that a GAC can be failed for such lame reasons. Thanks. LuciferMorgan 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I penned this essay of sorts in my user space. It explains how I usually apply the GA criteria. Feel free to use it if it closely describes you application of the criteria. I plan to reference it with every review that results in fail. A mcmurray 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(undent). Umm... -- Ling.Nut 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please look at this recently-passed GA. It was failed last month, and it was just passed by Mitgeek ( talk · contribs) as the *only* edits he has made to Wikipedia. The main author if the article previously stated he attended MIT, although he has obfuscated all of his user and talk page entries. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
ArticleHistory}} records all review-like events in one, including peer reviews, wikiproject reviews, wikiproject a-class assessments, GA nominations and FA candidacies, and even a few other rare ones. If you don't want to deal with the details of the template, the main relevant part is the currentstatus
option. While this can take values like FA and GA, it is not the same as the class option in wikiproject templates. The appropriate status for a delisted GA is DGA, and for a failed GA nominee, FGAN. Any GAs that are former FAs, should have FFA/GA - this is the only combination status code supported. If a FFA/GA is delisted from GA, the status should become simply FFA. Failed FACs (FFAC) which become GA are status GA.
Gimmetrow
23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we please change the rules so we can delist articles immediately if they obviously fail the GA criteria? It will hopefully clear up the large dispute backlog. Tarret 00:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, does anyone think this is enough agreement to go ahead with the change? Homestarmy 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we archive reviews on the article's talk/subpage instead of the GA/R archives. That way it would be easier to access them for input rather than having to search through a 15 page archive to find a review. Tarret 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Can those who ain't voted please cast a vote at this review so we can close it, whether it be promote or fail? Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is certainly picking up more editors, and thusly, it seems to me that from the size of this page, waiting about a week until the last comment or so has been said appears to be going a bit too slowely now. How about we add onto the archive instructions that debates can be archived after the votes for one side reach a certain critical mass, so say, if there's over 7 votes on an article and at least 6 are for one side, (And there doesn't appear to be any real argument going on) it can be archived right then? Homestarmy 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Is is just me or do I see FA-requirements being applied to GA candidates, and being failed on not meeting those much higher requirements? It is my perception that GA-class is in better than B-Class and going in the direction of A-Class. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
The delisting instructions should warn people to look back through the article history, in case they are viewing a vandalised (eg. truncated) version of the article, or to check whether the article has been reverted by a vandal back past the GA promotion point. Otherwise delisting just makes baby Jesus cry and the vandals cackle. Pace WP:BEANS. Carcharoth 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through a couple categories of good articles, and I'm surprised by just how many articles were warned about a lack of inline citations back in 2006, but haven't been updated. Is there any way that we could establish a rule where we can speedy delist and article if it has been warned for, say, three months about not having inline citations? I'm just thinking that all of those articles are going to clutter the main GA/R page, and they'd almost without exception be deleted anyway. I'd like to hear what some of you other guys think. Teemu08 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What happenned to the GA review template? It should be back in the instructions for listing a GA/R. Sumoeagle179 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a policy on the clear cut GARs which rack up a quick amount of fails, and the outcome seems rather obvious? Are they delisted after a week or something similar? Just wondering. LuciferMorgan 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is certainly picking up more editors, and thusly, it seems to me that from the size of this page, waiting about a week until the last comment or so has been said appears to be going a bit too slowely now. How about we add onto the archive instructions that debates can be archived after the votes for one side reach a certain critical mass, so say, if there's over 7 votes on an article and at least 6 are for one side, (And there doesn't appear to be any real argument going on or something) it can be archived right then? Homestarmy 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been up on all details lately. I wonder whether it's worthwhile to encode prima facie speedy delist criterion as follows:
These should be delisted with absolutely no need for WP:GA/R. Maybe a note/warning should be left on the article's Talk. -- Ling.Nut 02:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Mmm-hmmm. I should have qualified/clarified my use of the word "failed." -- Ling.Nut 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
When articles are removed at FAR, they are normally reassessed as B, even if the article had GA status prior to featuring. This was questioned at Talk:Torchic#Removed_GA. Generally if an article is removed from FA, it is removed for substantial reasons which would also justify delisting from GA. Comments? Gimmetrow 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a WikiProject award, the Good Article Badge. Though it is a project award it is meant to be handed out to anyone for great contributions to GAs or GAC or GAR etc. See the proposal at : Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiProject_Good_articles, voice your opinion and discuss there. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I was browsing around and out of curiosity I clicked on the user name in the talk page of an article I work on. I was shocked to find out that the article, which I had nominated for GA, had been reviewed and passed by a confirmed sockpuppet. I listed it here for review (see WP:GA/R- William Fuller (football player)) , here's a list of list of the other reviews done by the sockpuppet:
I archived about a dozen reviews, took care of the talk pages and listings and put a notification on each talk page with a link to the archived review. I based my decisions on a combination of what I saw as consensus and time elapsed since review nomination. If anyone has any questions or concerns about my rationale please don't hesitate to contact to me for further explanation. Check the edit histories too, for some of them I was a bit more detailed. IvoShandor 13:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the current version of the instructions on the archive page are too unclear, I will attempt a rewrite below the current version here. Let me know what you think.
Current version To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary (this part seemed extraneous to me, too ambiguous). For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves disputes which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.
My new version This is my new version, the paragraph break isn't necessary I just thought it needed one.
To archive an article from the review page, check over reviews for listings with consensus for action. For instance, if a discussion results in four editors for delisting an article based on the GA criteria and one editor for keeping the article because they like it, then delist the article as you archive it. In reviews where consensus is unclear, such as two editors for delisting and two for keeping, try to make a new comment rather than archiving to see if the review should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, as a general rule do not archive any review that has a comment less than a week old, unless a rarely posted resolution is present.
An exception to these rules involves reviews which have a clear outcome in all of these ways: there is at least an 80% majority of comments to do something with the article, there are at least six votes and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review. IvoShandor 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The GA Review for Marquette Building needs more input, many of my comments have gone unaddressed and the user involved told me he would be making no other changes, others have voiced a want to add to it but I haven't seen much yet. IvoShandor 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was going to list this article as it contains almost no citations but then I noticed an edit war on the talk page. Apparently a few editors are fighting desperately to keep citations out. I'm clueless as to what to do and don't really want to get in the middle of this. Help or advice would be appreciated. Aaron Bowen 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I archived the above article even though discussion was only a day old since there were 7 delists. I felt WP:SNOW applied, and consensus wasn't going to change in another 2 days. LuciferMorgan 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have quick failed several wrestling article GACs per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Some of the other wrestling articles might need to be looked over. Quadzilla99 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I delisted this mess of an article. I'm planning to do a full review, which should have been done to begin with, and I'm leaving a lengthy message on the talk page of the "reviewer" (for lack of an appropriate title). -- LaraLove T/ C 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There have been several train articles (almost a dozen) that have gone through the GA/R process and all have been delisted with a clear consensus without any (by my recollection) garnering even a single "keep" vote. It looks like many of them were named GA a LONG time ago, before the current set of standards, and most if not all are obviousl well below the current criteria. I propose that any further train articles which are largely similar to these be speedy delisted without any further discussion. Lets put the burden on the editors of this group of articles to bring it up for review if they feel the delisting was inappropriate. If you delist one, simply leave a note on the talk page as to WHERE it is deficient, and maybe direct them to Archives 17, 18, and 19 where most of the reviews on these train articles occured so people can see that they ALL have the same sorts of problems.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can freely delist these per Jayron32's reasoning, and strike through the article in the list to show it has been delisted. I'm currently busy and cannot undertake this task, though I feel it's in the best interests of the GA's reputations these are delisted asap. Thanks for your time everyone. LuciferMorgan 11:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I had to quick fail two more wrestling articles, Brian Adams (wrestler) and Nora Greenwald per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Wrestling editors should take note. Quadzilla99 07:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Coloring is all very well for boilerplate. But instructions should be visible. In this case, the existence of instructions for speedy delisting, which should be normal, has been concealed by color tags. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose both, per the discussion we've had. Therefore, there's no consensus for this change and IMHO, it should de reverted. The "disputed" tag should be reserved for bits that HAVE previously been agreed upon before, but are up for discussion now. This way, anybody can add a pile of rubbish, add "disputed" and the innocent by-passers can only be left confused. PrinceGloria 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I made two tweaks:
I oppose both.
First, I think we need some more eyes here. I've brought a couple issues here and they were decided by three people (and I was one of them). For instance, Jimmy Wales closed with 1.5 votes for delisting. Speedrun closed 2-1 in favor of delisting (no consensus). We need to get editors here so we can get a better, more thorough review.
Second, I think that GAR should model itself more closely along WP:FAR. For instnace, I commented on the Mario GBR that it lacked citations in the "Relations" section. That was since fixed up, but my comment was still considered a "delist" vote when the closer of the GAR delisted Mario at Talk:Mario. I think we need to separate it out - review, then voting, similar to how WP:FAR does it. Hbdragon88 04:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it possuble to archive an article up for review if it is nominated for FAC. I am planning of put the Roman-Spartan War up for FAC and I don't think that it should be on FAC and GA/R at the same time. Could someone please tell me. Thanks. Kyriakos 04:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Copied from review of The Beatles on main page;
I would advise folk that... I wrote a piece at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) entitled WP:FAR and WP:GAR Are The Enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. I was quite rude, in the first comment, about the review process and the people who do it. I did it to elicit a greater reaction, and have since apologised for language and given my rationale. I stand by the general thrust of my comments. Reviewers here may wish to make their representations.
I mention it as perhaps some reviewers have not read the Beatles review. LessHeard vanU 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we archive some of the GARs on the page at the moment? The page is getting a bit clogged, but I noticed some of the articles have already had their GA status removed which means their specific GAR discussion needs archival. LuciferMorgan 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying Homestarmy. Most of the GAs I'm listing clearly fail 2. b. for example, and couldn't get passed in their current state today. LuciferMorgan 00:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The article pages of the pages above state that the articles do not sufficiently cite their sources. Should that disqualify them from GA status? John Carter 23:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
{{ Process header blue}} could be a good substitute for the ever-expanding archives box on the article page... -- Ling.Nut 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Can a few people weigh in on this GAR please? The reasons the failer has given for failing this one are just plain ludicrous to be frank, and people need to give their thoughts on the article. If it passes the criteria then feel free to say this at the GAR, or if it doesn't, then can you please give a specific area that needs addressing to meet GAR? The problem is the discussion hasn't really taken off, and I'm alarmed that a GAC can be failed for such lame reasons. Thanks. LuciferMorgan 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I penned this essay of sorts in my user space. It explains how I usually apply the GA criteria. Feel free to use it if it closely describes you application of the criteria. I plan to reference it with every review that results in fail. A mcmurray 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(undent). Umm... -- Ling.Nut 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please look at this recently-passed GA. It was failed last month, and it was just passed by Mitgeek ( talk · contribs) as the *only* edits he has made to Wikipedia. The main author if the article previously stated he attended MIT, although he has obfuscated all of his user and talk page entries. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
ArticleHistory}} records all review-like events in one, including peer reviews, wikiproject reviews, wikiproject a-class assessments, GA nominations and FA candidacies, and even a few other rare ones. If you don't want to deal with the details of the template, the main relevant part is the currentstatus
option. While this can take values like FA and GA, it is not the same as the class option in wikiproject templates. The appropriate status for a delisted GA is DGA, and for a failed GA nominee, FGAN. Any GAs that are former FAs, should have FFA/GA - this is the only combination status code supported. If a FFA/GA is delisted from GA, the status should become simply FFA. Failed FACs (FFAC) which become GA are status GA.
Gimmetrow
23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we please change the rules so we can delist articles immediately if they obviously fail the GA criteria? It will hopefully clear up the large dispute backlog. Tarret 00:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, does anyone think this is enough agreement to go ahead with the change? Homestarmy 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we archive reviews on the article's talk/subpage instead of the GA/R archives. That way it would be easier to access them for input rather than having to search through a 15 page archive to find a review. Tarret 01:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Can those who ain't voted please cast a vote at this review so we can close it, whether it be promote or fail? Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is certainly picking up more editors, and thusly, it seems to me that from the size of this page, waiting about a week until the last comment or so has been said appears to be going a bit too slowely now. How about we add onto the archive instructions that debates can be archived after the votes for one side reach a certain critical mass, so say, if there's over 7 votes on an article and at least 6 are for one side, (And there doesn't appear to be any real argument going on) it can be archived right then? Homestarmy 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Is is just me or do I see FA-requirements being applied to GA candidates, and being failed on not meeting those much higher requirements? It is my perception that GA-class is in better than B-Class and going in the direction of A-Class. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
The delisting instructions should warn people to look back through the article history, in case they are viewing a vandalised (eg. truncated) version of the article, or to check whether the article has been reverted by a vandal back past the GA promotion point. Otherwise delisting just makes baby Jesus cry and the vandals cackle. Pace WP:BEANS. Carcharoth 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through a couple categories of good articles, and I'm surprised by just how many articles were warned about a lack of inline citations back in 2006, but haven't been updated. Is there any way that we could establish a rule where we can speedy delist and article if it has been warned for, say, three months about not having inline citations? I'm just thinking that all of those articles are going to clutter the main GA/R page, and they'd almost without exception be deleted anyway. I'd like to hear what some of you other guys think. Teemu08 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What happenned to the GA review template? It should be back in the instructions for listing a GA/R. Sumoeagle179 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a policy on the clear cut GARs which rack up a quick amount of fails, and the outcome seems rather obvious? Are they delisted after a week or something similar? Just wondering. LuciferMorgan 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is certainly picking up more editors, and thusly, it seems to me that from the size of this page, waiting about a week until the last comment or so has been said appears to be going a bit too slowely now. How about we add onto the archive instructions that debates can be archived after the votes for one side reach a certain critical mass, so say, if there's over 7 votes on an article and at least 6 are for one side, (And there doesn't appear to be any real argument going on or something) it can be archived right then? Homestarmy 14:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been up on all details lately. I wonder whether it's worthwhile to encode prima facie speedy delist criterion as follows:
These should be delisted with absolutely no need for WP:GA/R. Maybe a note/warning should be left on the article's Talk. -- Ling.Nut 02:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Mmm-hmmm. I should have qualified/clarified my use of the word "failed." -- Ling.Nut 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
When articles are removed at FAR, they are normally reassessed as B, even if the article had GA status prior to featuring. This was questioned at Talk:Torchic#Removed_GA. Generally if an article is removed from FA, it is removed for substantial reasons which would also justify delisting from GA. Comments? Gimmetrow 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a WikiProject award, the Good Article Badge. Though it is a project award it is meant to be handed out to anyone for great contributions to GAs or GAC or GAR etc. See the proposal at : Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiProject_Good_articles, voice your opinion and discuss there. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I was browsing around and out of curiosity I clicked on the user name in the talk page of an article I work on. I was shocked to find out that the article, which I had nominated for GA, had been reviewed and passed by a confirmed sockpuppet. I listed it here for review (see WP:GA/R- William Fuller (football player)) , here's a list of list of the other reviews done by the sockpuppet:
I archived about a dozen reviews, took care of the talk pages and listings and put a notification on each talk page with a link to the archived review. I based my decisions on a combination of what I saw as consensus and time elapsed since review nomination. If anyone has any questions or concerns about my rationale please don't hesitate to contact to me for further explanation. Check the edit histories too, for some of them I was a bit more detailed. IvoShandor 13:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the current version of the instructions on the archive page are too unclear, I will attempt a rewrite below the current version here. Let me know what you think.
Current version To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary (this part seemed extraneous to me, too ambiguous). For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves disputes which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.
My new version This is my new version, the paragraph break isn't necessary I just thought it needed one.
To archive an article from the review page, check over reviews for listings with consensus for action. For instance, if a discussion results in four editors for delisting an article based on the GA criteria and one editor for keeping the article because they like it, then delist the article as you archive it. In reviews where consensus is unclear, such as two editors for delisting and two for keeping, try to make a new comment rather than archiving to see if the review should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, as a general rule do not archive any review that has a comment less than a week old, unless a rarely posted resolution is present.
An exception to these rules involves reviews which have a clear outcome in all of these ways: there is at least an 80% majority of comments to do something with the article, there are at least six votes and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review. IvoShandor 08:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The GA Review for Marquette Building needs more input, many of my comments have gone unaddressed and the user involved told me he would be making no other changes, others have voiced a want to add to it but I haven't seen much yet. IvoShandor 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was going to list this article as it contains almost no citations but then I noticed an edit war on the talk page. Apparently a few editors are fighting desperately to keep citations out. I'm clueless as to what to do and don't really want to get in the middle of this. Help or advice would be appreciated. Aaron Bowen 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I archived the above article even though discussion was only a day old since there were 7 delists. I felt WP:SNOW applied, and consensus wasn't going to change in another 2 days. LuciferMorgan 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have quick failed several wrestling article GACs per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Some of the other wrestling articles might need to be looked over. Quadzilla99 11:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I delisted this mess of an article. I'm planning to do a full review, which should have been done to begin with, and I'm leaving a lengthy message on the talk page of the "reviewer" (for lack of an appropriate title). -- LaraLove T/ C 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There have been several train articles (almost a dozen) that have gone through the GA/R process and all have been delisted with a clear consensus without any (by my recollection) garnering even a single "keep" vote. It looks like many of them were named GA a LONG time ago, before the current set of standards, and most if not all are obviousl well below the current criteria. I propose that any further train articles which are largely similar to these be speedy delisted without any further discussion. Lets put the burden on the editors of this group of articles to bring it up for review if they feel the delisting was inappropriate. If you delist one, simply leave a note on the talk page as to WHERE it is deficient, and maybe direct them to Archives 17, 18, and 19 where most of the reviews on these train articles occured so people can see that they ALL have the same sorts of problems.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can freely delist these per Jayron32's reasoning, and strike through the article in the list to show it has been delisted. I'm currently busy and cannot undertake this task, though I feel it's in the best interests of the GA's reputations these are delisted asap. Thanks for your time everyone. LuciferMorgan 11:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I had to quick fail two more wrestling articles, Brian Adams (wrestler) and Nora Greenwald per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Wrestling editors should take note. Quadzilla99 07:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Coloring is all very well for boilerplate. But instructions should be visible. In this case, the existence of instructions for speedy delisting, which should be normal, has been concealed by color tags. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose both, per the discussion we've had. Therefore, there's no consensus for this change and IMHO, it should de reverted. The "disputed" tag should be reserved for bits that HAVE previously been agreed upon before, but are up for discussion now. This way, anybody can add a pile of rubbish, add "disputed" and the innocent by-passers can only be left confused. PrinceGloria 20:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I made two tweaks:
I oppose both.