![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Several of the current GARs touch upon two related issues.
Can we improve this in any way? Geometry guy 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to automate the listing of GARs on this page in a similar manner to the listing of Peer reviews on the PR page. I would also like to automate the archives. For that I propose that reviews be placed on subpages of the form [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ARTICLE NAME/N]] (where N=1,2,3,...) and are transcluded onto this page automatically using a category listing bot. A talk page template will be used to set up this GAR subpage. With this system, a GAR can be archived by changing a template on [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ARTICLE NAME/N]] at the same time as providing the closing comments: the GAR will then be automatically removed from the GAR page and automatically listed instead on an archive page. This will remove one of the more annoying steps from the archiving process.
The appearance of this page will be unchanged. Any views or comments? Geometry guy 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to go ahead with this. There will be a short transitional phase before the automation is fully operational. Experience shows that there will also be some teething problems. Please be patient and raise any issues here. Thanks Geometry guy 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There was a discussion for Greg Skrepenak which looked headed toward relist late last month or early this month, but it is no longer here and not at Talk:Greg Skrepenak. Shouldn't it be there by now?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can't locate the discussions for delisting of Grameen Bank and Banglapedia. Can someone, please, lead me to the discussions? Aditya( talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
this GAR was closed after 1 delist vote by User Cirt; reason for closure was "content dispute", Cirt's delist vote brought up other GA criteria not being met. Can anyone close off a GAR preemptively without considering the merits of the GAR? I (and also Cirt it seems) do not think the article comes close to GA standards so what can be done now? Mr.grantevans2 ( talk) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The automation appears to be working well now, and, in my experience so far, archiving is easier. Let me summarize the new set-up.
I'm not mentioning several points here, but I'd like to know if this is workable. So far I've done most of the archiving: {{ GAR/AH}} was also a great help. Please try it out and comment. Geometry guy 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm wanting to flip through the current good articles doing quick checks to see if any ought to be reassessed. Is there any system set up for this? For example, anyway of telling other GA editors which articles I've double checked and when, so we're not all covering the same ground?
-- jwanders Talk 06:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The order in which GARs are listed has been reversed recently, so that the oldest nominations appear first. This actually happened by accident, but it occurs to me that it might be better to list GARs in this order. For one thing, it is more consistent with WP:GAN. For another it may help draw attention to old reviews in need of further comments or archiving. Any views? Geometry guy 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've asked a couple of editors to try out the archiving and I'm not convinced that the system is ideal yet. Archiving still takes too long, in my view, and I think the {{ GAR/link}} template is badly designed and not very easy to use.
I would therefore like to propose a fairly bold change, that we make GAR more like GAN (and peer review) by using a talk page template which is placed at the top of the article talk page. There would be a template for a current discussion, and a template for a closed one (which could be used instead of article history). This would mean, in principle, that closing a GAR would involve only one talk page edit, at the top of the page, to sort out all the banners, although reviewers could also add some explanation to the talk page discussion if they wish. However, in my view, a link, together with explanation in the GAR discussion should be sufficient.
Does this idea work for others? Geometry guy 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I note that Talk:José Martí claims that the article is a "Good Article," but I can't see any evidence that it has passed WP:GAN. What's more, if it was once up to scratch, it isn't any more and should be reassessed.
(In case anyone's wondering, yes I am planning next semester's syllabus, hehe.) -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 13:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I delisted two articles today, Air (visual novel) and Yoshitaka Amano as they both fail multiple GA criteria (both were listed back in 2007). I believe I followed the proper procedure for delisting, including leaving notes on the article talk pages clearly showing which GA criteria they fail to list. Two different editors came through and reverted the delistings, saying "there was no discussion first" and one claiming I'd "overstepped by bounds" and that one editor can't judge an article for delisting (yet one can judge for listing??). From what I read, delisting does not require discussion nor does it have to be listed here before being delisted. Both editors seem to feel otherwise so I'd like some clarification. Is it required to have a discussion before an article is delisted when it clearly fails the Good Article critera? If so, can the instructions be made clearer regarding this or the part about delisting without GAR listed removed if its false. Also, are obviously involved editors of the articles allowed to "revert" a delisting? AnmaFinotera ( talk) 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. 02:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
How are GA reviews such as this helpful to editors? How many delistings and failed nominations are contested simply on the grounds that the reviewers are not providing any additional information with their "reviews?" Is there some way we can require that reviews be complete and actually provide useful feedback? No article (not even an FA) is perfect so there should always be suggestions on ways to improve an article. If these articles are being failed, then there's obviously things that can be pointed out. A simple pass/fail w/ no explanation is unhelpful to everyone. will381796 ( talk) 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Madonna (entertainer)/2 appearing at WP:GAR?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Blood donation/GA1 discussion has been completed. Some edits (more than just formating for clarity) have been added after the GAR result was given. Do these late edits need to be removed? Can only administrators close the discussion putting a box around it? Snowman ( talk) 21:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
When I next have time, I plan to complete the GA review subpage implementation by providing a mechanism to generate a review subpage for an individual reassessment of a current GA. The scheme I have in mind is to combine the individual reassessment process with the community GAR process. Thus {{ subst:GAR}} will initially provide two links: one to start an individual reassessment on an article talk subpage (/GA1, /GA2, etc.), a second to start a community reassessment on a GAR subpage. Editors can then choose the most appropriate course of action.
In the past, editors have often either delisted articles with barely a comment, or brought them to this page when a community discussion was unnecessary. The consensus that every completed GA action needs a permanent link to a review page applies to individual reassessments as well, and I hope that this change will encourage better practice. I therefore also intend to restructure the current GAR guidelines to reflect this shift.
If anyone has any other comments on individual and/or community reassessments, now would be a good time to raise them. Geometry guy 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've now updated the guidelines. Please copyedit/clarify if necessary. I've also improved {{ GAR/link}} so that it can be used to record results of reassessments as well as active ones. This replaces the functionality of {{ Old GAR}} as an alternative to {{ ArticleHistory}} for editors who find the latter too complicated. Geometry guy 15:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone just did something to the GAR page. An entire article, Platinum Underground, is now plastered on the bottom of the GAR page and at least one of the GARs isn't transcluding anymore. Can anyone fix it? Majoreditor ( talk) 05:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) This actually happened to me once before; see my block log. Ling. Nut (WP:3IAR) 07:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There were too many errors for me to sort at Talk:Max Mosley; can someone who knows the history there, and who knows how to correctly build {{ articlehistory}} please do so? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The following copy/pasted from WP:GAR:
"If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, do not close. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions."
Erm. This wording is more than a little too strong. Things need to be moved along. GARs are sitting around unclosed with no new comments for 3 weeks.
Suggest rewording to make it easier to close. Something like:
Can I suggest amending part 4 of the reassessment process; "Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects." to also include notifying the initial Good Article reviewer? Surely it's common courtesy for the reviewer to be involved in the process? Peanut4 ( talk) 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been perfoming individual GARs as part of the GA sweeps project. The first couple of reassessments were great, as they led to substantial improvements. I'm having a hard time making up my mind on Great Pyramid of Giza. I'm not convinced that there is sufficient breadth of coverage (the construction theories section says that there are several theories but doesn't discuss them, and aside from the three main rooms, much of the inside of the pyramid isn't discussed). There is a separate article for construction theories, though. The reassessment is here. I've tried contacting all of the relevant projects twice, as well as major contributors, but I'm not getting anywhere. Another set of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Could GA articles be nominated for review just like other articles? That would leave GAR for disputes about the appropriateness of reviews. -- Una Smith ( talk) 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've had a GAR open for Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show) for nearly a month now and nobody's commented. Did I leave a step out? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I found this article through the Main Page and was quite surprised to see it listed as GA. It seems far from comprehensive, with scant references to substantial sources and weak prose. I haven't got the time, but could someone consider re-assessing? the skomorokh 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few days ago Malleus Fatuorum demoted Ireland without any notification other than initiating the GAR by notice before demoting it 15 minute later. When I questioned him about it, his reply seemed rather dimissive and uncooparative imho. I noticed that under the GAR individual reassessment instructions it specifically says "Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer." I don't see that that was done and though I am not a major contributing editor no notice was even given to the Ireland WikiProject either, so while the article may have some issues I think demoting from GA was improperly executed. Comments would be appreciated as Malleus Fatuorum has now gone into semi-retirement and his reply suggested bringing it here. Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 01:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Just for clarification here, it is my view that Ww2censor is being disingenuous in his claim that I "demoted Ireland without any notification other than initiating the GAR by notice before demoting it 15 minute later." In fact I delisted it without any notification whatsoever. That the [[WP:GAR]] template was on the page for 15 minutes is irrelevant, as I already tried to explain. It was not there as any kind of notification of anything, simply as a convenient way of generating the review page. Neither did I delist the article simply because it had a few "citation needed" tags; I delisted it because it was (in my view) inadequately cited as per 2b, and the amount of work needed to correct that was substantial. I take issue with Ww2censor's remark that my reply to him was "dimissive and uncooparative", and would urge him to get to work fixing the article instead of wasting further time here. Unless that is, he believes that the article does in fact meet the GA criteria, in which case a community review would be appropriate.
I have never delisted an article lightly; in the case of Ireland I judged that the amount of work required was too much to be completed during the hold period. The fact that the work has not yet been done six days later, or even started, tends to reinforce my view rather than the reverse. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 17:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse MF and his delisting. YellowMonkey ( click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 02:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think MF or STFU-MF as he is also known, has flouted the whole idea of process here. If an article has fallen below the required standard it should be first given the chance to come back up to scratch. It is a long and tedious process to re-attain GA status. Acting like a dick in response to the queries on this summary justice leaves me with no doubt that he is not in a fit place to remove the GA status in the first place. He is not a responsible editor, but in fact a loose cannon. It is just basic politeness to let other editors repair the day to day damage that can happen to these articles. I think a RFC should be made as this is clearly obscene.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/guidelines#delist I have to ask in what way is this confirmation to wikipedia process. Please outline in full how MF's actions comply with GA delisting here.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 11:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring point 4 of a guideline does not fall under WP:DBAD ( WP:BURO and WP:IAR seem more relevant). The delisting guidelines are only guidelines, not instructions, and guidelines exist to reflect consensus, not determine it. It is quite common for reviewers to exercise discretion about point 4, which was not bolded until July this year. I bolded it and added the courtesy notification recommendation to reflect and encourage best practice. I wish reviewers would follow it more often, as delisting without pausing for response has the potential to cause unnecessary problems and bad feeling, as this case illustrates. (Sadly, though, notification does not guarantee a problem-free reassessment.)
Reassessment is not a sickbed, and GA status is not a badge which once attained can only be removed with due reverence. GA is an assertion that an article meets the criteria; those who wish to maintain an article's status need to maintain its quality in line with these criteria. Don't blame the messenger.
GA is a process where individual reviewer judgement is foremost. Community reassessment is available for cases where the result of that judgement is questioned or challenged. I therefore welcome the initiation of a community GAR for this article, and hope we can draw a line under the angry remarks by both sides. Instead, as several editors are now doing, let us focus on improving the article and addressing its current failings with respect to the criteria. These are the raisons de'etre for GA. Geometry guy 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
What is going on with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 40? Approximately, the last ten days have not been archived.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Given that Talk:Homosexual_transsexual/GA1 seems to be requesting a group reassessment, is it possible for a system to be implemented that allows an individual reassessment to be easily converted into a group assessment? - Malkinann ( talk) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there must be a good and obvious reason why the GAR requested at Talk:Edward the Martyr isn't showing up here, but it's not obvious to me. Can someone have a look? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Facts not right. According to the the New York Times the dates do not match up.
[ [7]]
I am very new to this so bare with me.
Cleo Athalia77 ( talk) 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal#Introducing_GA_to_main_page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. OhanaUnited Talk page 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I nominated Tila Tequila for reassessment over a week ago and has yet to appear on the project page. I followed the procedure completely, but nothing turns up here. Did I make a mistake somewhere? Diverse Mentality 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers, I was unaware that individual reassessments weren't listed. I guess I'll give the article a total of two weeks for the problems to be addressed and delist if they aren't. Thanks for the help guys.
Diverse
Mentality 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to make some changes to the way we review Good Article nominations is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA review reform. All interested editors are invited to participate. EyeSerene talk 11:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I have crated a reassessment page - Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scotland/1 - however I created that page before I applied {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article's Talk page, so the box is pointing to a redlink (Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scotland/2).
Also, I cannot fathom how to transclude the discussion to the bottom of the Talk page.
Help appreciated.-- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A GA of mine was recently put through the GAR process and demoted - no problems there, I agree on the assessment and currently not in a position to readily fix it. So I'm not expecting that to change, just an observation on the process.
However, the only way I discovered it was demoted was when my watchlist showed its article history being updated. Sure, in the history the GAR notice was added to the article, which I likely missed (particularly as it occurred on Jan 1) on my watchlist. The nominator didn't drop anything to my talk page on this, which the current instructions don't require and as it was an older article prior to the new GA process for having review transclusions, determining the major editor(s) would have taken some work.
Given that the new process to pass GAs do allow for easy identification of the original GA nominator, I would think that notification of this user should be mandatory (as it is done in the FAR process); other users can be recommended. Of course, for the older GAs, determining the user may be more difficult but it is possible. -- MASEM 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) - The GAR header was added back in September, and the last comment on the GAR was also in September. D.M.N. ( talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to follow the instructions in these reassessment guidelines, in order to correctly end my individual GA review (of the article Culture, but they do not cover:
I hope someone can provide some help on these questions. This whole business of going through this review procedure is very time-consuming this first time round... and may deter me from instigating future article reviews.
Please note: I am cross posting this enquiry on this talk page having mistakenly posted it a few hours ago on a "duplicate" talk page for another version of this page! I have raised the duplicate copies of page issue at the Village Pump technical forum. -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 06:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that most individual reviews are on article talk subpages, they are easy to link and I've been increasingly adding links from community reassessments. However, there's no point in editors doing a job if it can be automated, so I've modified {{ subst:GAR/header}} to produce the links automatically. Please report any glitches. Geometry guy 17:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I just de-listed Rocky. I think I did everything right to close out the GAR. Will a bot update the article history/milestones box or do I need to do that manually? Otto4711 ( talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I listed Flatworm several days ago and it still is not listed on this page. In the meantime, the nominator is getting pissed and is continuing to nominate it for WP:GAN, but I strongly feel that this should be looked at by more than one person. The article is in the category for GAR nominees, but it's still not listed at WP:GAR. Dr. Cash ( talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Several hours ago, I created the community reassessment request, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/DeviantArt/1. It has yet to show up on this page, even though the instructions say it should automatically appear within an hour. Since I've never done this before, I'm concerned that I may have missed something. Help! Aleta Sing 03:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request a reassessment of Slut Night for reasons I just explained on the talk page. I don't think I can actually request one through this process as I don't have an account. Can anyone create the reassessment page for me? I am a very occasional editor to Wikipedia and even if I did have an account, I don't understand the process. -- 74.138.229.88 ( talk) 02:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I have just nominated Veronica Mars (season 3) at FLC, although it is currently a GA. Is there anyways this could be delisted without going through the regular process? I nominated the article at GAN myself, so there is no problem with the nominator. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the good folks here pls figure out how to best deal with this GA? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Intelligence Agency/archive1 Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I came across Social Security (United States) while sweeping the articles with broken references category and realised this isn't meeting the GA criteria on a number of fronts. Despite the fact that I've been busy with GA noms and reviews in the past, I've never done a delisting. Do others agree that this should be a speedy delist? The current controversies section is but one section which exemplifies the problems that this article has. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently there's the backlog template on this page, despite there only being seven articles here right now. Do you think we can just remove it? Noble Story ( talk • contributions) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
AboutMovies put the article Betty Roberts up for an individual reassessment when withdrawing it from the community reassessment in progress. The article originally failed GAN (by me), and AboutMovies, the nominator, put it up for CR for that reason. After questions and comments by 2 editors at the CR, a sentence that was not in any source was brought to the nominator's attention and was removed by them.
I think the individual reassessment is inapppropriate because (1) CR is the proper place to reassess a failed GA review, (2) the nominator did this because he was going to lose at CR and wants to have yet another, second, reassessment, and (3) the article was changed as a result of the unfinished CR in a way that removed a reason failing it (for OR) so it can't be properly reassessed again. I am new to GAR, and an involved party of the original dispute, so I would like to ask others to decide and to take appropriate action. Thanks! Diderot's dreams ( talk) 16:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I just went to article alerts here and found three articles nominated for GAR since February, what happens now. The Windler talk 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be proceeding very slowly, as the reassessment was initiated February 14, 2009. See Talk:1918 flu pandemic/GA1. Is is possible to make it a community reassessment in order to get more eyes? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it appropriate to nominate for reassessment a GA that is undergoing significant changes, i.e., as a result of an edit war? It seems to me that if the article is no longer stable, it no longer meets GA criterion five, and thus should be delisted. However, my nomination of this article for this very reason seems to have stirred up some controversy. What is the general consensus? Thanks, Vicenarian ( talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I share the interpretation of Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk · contribs). Further, I would suggest that the correct time to nominate for review is after the article has stabilized in some new state if you think it no longer meets the requirements. This way you know what the final state is without people arguing "But it's getting better/worse as we speak" during the review (which I suppose is why there is a stability requirement at all). -- Falcorian (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
A bot generated a listing for Good Articles in need of cleanup: Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing, Tom B ( talk) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
An IP comments: "That article should not be listed as a good history article. Only very ignorant people would not see how it is used as propaganda. It certainly has some people who try to balance it, but the bias is gross. That article ia dominated by the kind of people that we can all suppose. Kun."
It was last checked in August 2008 as part of GA Sweeps. See also Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_26#Nordic_theory. Geometry guy 11:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added an experimental section to the GAR page. Please see WT:GA#Good articles which are found wanting at FAC for further information and discussion. Geometry guy 11:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There's currently no list (that I could see) of all of the archives. It appears you can only go one-by-one to find a particular review/date. In addition, the oldest archives are named Good article disputes, should these be renamed to GAR? If there are no problems with this, I'll move them and add an archive link indicating the dates the GARs in each archive range from. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the following is the list of all of the archives. I added the dates of when the review was initially opened, rather than when it was closed. I didn't rename the old pages since they are archive pages (and I don't want to fix all of the article history errors). Now that we have this list, is there a simple way to put this into a table to list on the GAR page? Tomorrow (technically today) I'll make a subpage with a list of all of the articles that went through community GAR at one point (or in some cases, at several points). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
1 (March 2006-May 2006)
2 (May-June 2006)
3 (June 2006)
4 (July-August 2006)
5 (August 2006)
6 (August-September 2006)
7 (September-October 2006)
8 (October-November 2006)
9 (November 2006)
10 (November-December 2006)
11 (December 2006)
12 (December 2006-January 2007)
13 (January 2007)
14 (January-February 2007)
15 (February-March 2007)
16 (March-April 2007)
17 (April-May 2007)
18 (May 2007)
19 (May 2007)
20 (May 2007)
21 (May 2007)
22 (May-June 2007)
23 (June-July 2007)
24 (July 2007)
25 (July-August 2007)
26 (August 2007)
27 (August 2007)
28 (August-September 2007)
29 (September 2007)
30 (September-October 2007)
31 (October 2007)
32 (October-November 2007)
33 (November-Decmember 2007)
34 (December 2007)
35 (January-March 2008)
36 (March-April 2008)
37 (May-June 2008)
38 (June-July 2008)
39 (July-August 2008)
40 (October-December 2008)
41 (December 2008-February 2009)
42 (February-April 2009)
43 (April-May 2009)
44 (June-July 2009)
Minstrel show was recently removed through this process, over uncited statements. I count exactly four, only one of them on anything important, and all of which I imagine could be pretty easy to cite for, which I will try to do in the next couple of weeks. Talk:Minstrel show/GA1 says "This decision may be appealed at WP:GAR" but nothing at WP:GAR indicates how to do so, nor is it clear whether the appeal must be based on the current state of the article or if I can remedy these few identified problems first. - Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia. Could editors of wikipedia please do Good Article Reassessment of Josip Broz Tito article. The article is embarrassing. The Eastern European Dictator is portrayed as some sort of pop star and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. Also considering he was responsible for war crimes,mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment makes Wikipedia look like ad for Eastern European Dictatorships. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this? Sir Floyd ( talk) 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nehrams! Sir Floyd ( talk) 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As the last 2 reassessments have both been contested based on the fact they are using summary style, i think we need to decide on the extent to which reviewers have to search for the citations in subarticles. Some articles, such as Jesus, were almost entirely summary style, and the subarticle also had summary sections, which could result in a sixth degree of separation linking to hundreds of articles.
How deep does a reviewer have to go until they give up? Or should they just add a cite needed tag to points they consider needful to cite, without searching the subarticle? If a cite needed tag is added, but the cite is in a sub- (or sub-sub-) article, should the cite be copied across, or the tag simply removed, or hidden text be added (so later reviers know it was checked)?
As there is no way to force editors to only add to summaries if the claim is cited in the sub-article, and many older GAs seem less than cared for, there has to be some limit on what is expected of reviewers, or guidance as to what is the editors' responsibility. Yob Mod 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't the text of the Munchausen item display what is actually in the "Edit" box? In particular, my support for a review (and my stalker's sniping). Noloop ( talk) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Right now i'm reviewing Book of Vile Darkness and as it stands now it appears to fail WP:BK. Should this be delisted until then or what? Doing a quick google check i didn't find any other obvious RSes that could be used to show notability. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not particularly well acquainted with GAR, but I've become involved in the individual reassessment of Klaus Ebner here. It began over a week ago when the reviewer originally began a community reassessment, which I changed to individual since the article passed GA over a year ago. It quickly became clear that the editor was not solely measuring the article's worth by the GA criteria -- the multiple versions of the article that were automatically translated into other languages for other Wikis seemed their major concern -- and although most of the concerns are in regards to the notability/reliability of used sources, numerous editors have disagreed with their ideas of WP:RS. Now the reviewer seems to have abandoned the reassessment. I've left messages on the review subpage as well as the editor's talk page, and despite the fact that they are actively editing elsewhere, there has been no response. Where do we go from there? Could someone else take a look? María ( habla con migo) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've delisted the above article, but I've messed up the article history. Could someone fix it, please? Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Over the past year I've noticed a trend for GAR reviewers to state or imply that an in-line citation is needed for each paragraph to fulfill criterion 2. My understanding is that all material must come from verifiable good sources, but that in-line citations are only required under certain circumstances (statistics, direct quotations, material likely to be challenged, etc) While it's helpful for articles to go beyond these minimum requirements, it's not required.
But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the Good Article requirements or maybe consensus opinion on in-line citation has changed. What are your thoughts? Majoreditor ( talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I am currently doing a GAR of Good Samaritan law Talk:Good Samaritan law/GA2. The page does not deal with the issue on a global scale therefore in my opinion it does not fulfill GA requirements. The main editor disagrees. Further comments... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. When Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've undertaken a GAR under the sweeps process, at Provisional Legislature of Oregon, which resulted in it passing. The steps in the process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps say "If the article passes review, in {{ArticleHistory}}, add an entry and classify the action as GAR kept." In all my years here, i've never edited an articlehistory, and do not actually know how to do this. It is a semi-automated task at all? Can someone assist? hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The conversation is transcluded from WP talk:GAN. I want the help of my fellow editors and reviewers here to stop this biased madness. Please help.
Just yesterday I nominated the article " Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)" under music for GA. However, an editor who was involved in a previous dispute of the article, User:Piano non troppo suddenly chimed in and started reviewing the article. His main intention is to fail the article and hence is claiming in short that "the article is a pile load of shit". I request my fellow GA reviewrs here to request him to step down from his biased review and let a reviewer not associated with the article come and review it. He should be warned against actions like this. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In summer 2009 I found the GA review for Megalon was faulty and raised a GAR, and LeGenD has a lot of work to improve the article. In late December 2009 I had an operation, and am not fit to continue as the reviewer. We'd both be grateful if an other reviewer could complete the review. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you guys have to be sick of seeing these updates by now. Again, when Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I've made a proposal that notifications for good article reassessment be made mandatory here. Lambanog ( talk) 03:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not know how to do this but could someone nominate American civil war? That article has many problems as underlined on the talkpage. It is incomplete and doesn't show the full scope and impacts/causes of it, only major battles. 198.188.150.134 ( talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
If an editor places a {{subst:GAR}}
template on an article talk page and initiates an individual re-assessment, clciking on the individual assessment link creates a new page [[Talk:''Article name''/GA''x'']] where x is the number of the page. However at the top of the article the text A
good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently undergoing a
good article reassessment. where good artcile reassessment links to
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Article name/x which is where a community reassessment would be listed. Can this be fixed in some way? ––
Jezhotwells (
talk) 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
{{GAR/link|11:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)|page=1|GARpage=1|status=onhold }}Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to determine whether it's on a subpage of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment or on a subpage of the article's talk page. Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about this? Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 19:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Erm, hard code the "Talk:", append the article name, hard code the "/GA", read the +"page=" bit and append the value after the equal signs...? Just a thought.• Ling.Nut 16:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to promote this essay is underway. 174.3.113.245 ( talk) 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The so-called GAR at HIV appears to have been a significant abuse of process, and I am simply going to revert the delisting that this particular individual has undertaken. I'm not going to spend x number of days wikilawyering around this sort of conduct. Just a note for those who watch this area. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam, I observed that the articles on Christianiy, Islam, Hinduism, Osteopathy, Naturopathy,
Chiropractic etc. are good and positive and there are forks to the articles on Christianiy,
Islam and Hinduism which contain all the criticism. The article on Homeopathy as well as
its fork for criticism (' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism'), on the
other hand, are both negative and bad; so can we make the article on Homeopathy good and
positive like all the other articles and put all the criticism on its fork? If there's a
rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the criticism fork available in the main article for Christianiy, Islam and Hinduism also. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Dr.Vittal ( talk) 04:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone here follow Category:Good articles in need of review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I've recently submitted September_11_attacks for review (see review page) but got no replies. This is a very large article and I assume it would be too much work to review it and get it back to GA status, which is why I assume nobody answered. What should I do in that case? Should I delist the article myself? Laurent ( talk) 10:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
B'Day has been tagged for reassessment since May 2010. Should it not have been 'seen' to by now? Lil-unique1 ( talk) 01:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you guys add the discussion here? Thx Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 09:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if a few members particated in a GAR of Warcraft II, so that it is not swamped by those who swamped Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1. I don't want to influence those who partipicated in a GAR, and would prefer honest comment as more help for myself. IMO Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 was a poor review because:
-- Philcha ( talk) 18:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
-- Philcha ( talk) 18:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Warcraft_II/1 and the links from my contribs are OK. But when I try to link from Master_of_Orion_II to the GAR, I get an invalid link. Any idea why? -- Philcha ( talk) 07:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why Hlín has been listed as potentially needing reassessment? :bloodofox: ( talk) 14:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Would someone more experienced than me as to how the reassessment process works mind taking a look at 2006 Lebanon War? There's some kind of discussion there, but it looks pretty dormant; it's not resolved either way, and it's been sitting there for months. Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has had too many editors. Administrator fast and careless editing / reverting has left this article with many points being repeated more than two or three times and yet not all points are demonstrated with each method. Interesting facts have been deleted by overzealous editors attempting to protect the article in their emotionally based style. Too many personal concepts have been added with no cites or basis. Again careless editing have left it fairly scrambled. Attempts at editing result in more reversion and confusion in the layout.
A complete reconstruct needs attention using the current supplied data. The article is also too long for the messages conveyed.-- 174.118.149.54 ( talk) 04:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Would someone take a moment to respond to a question at Talk:Real-time Transport Protocol/GA1? An editor wants to know what to do about GA reassessment when another editor started one, but never finished it. -- Pnm ( talk) 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of GAs with cleanup templates at the top of them... see Heinrich event, Air transport and the environment (United Kingdom), Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels. Johnfos ( talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've de-listed Al-Kindi. Its had a POV tag on it for months on end. And also it isn't good William M. Connolley ( talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have real concerns about Rcsprinter123 ( talk · contribs) who is conducting GA reviews and making some howling mistakes. Looking at the user's talk page and the number of warnings received recently, I question whether this user is competent to make any GA reviews and if so what can/should be done to address this. See Talk:Fund accounting/GA1 and especially Talk:Karl Marx/GA1. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 08:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this article should be reassessed because since the fair review it was given and it's subsequent pass. It's core editors have added an array of fansite references to then article, which seems suspect. When me and another suggested they be removed, we had a backlash telling us they are notable because they are GI Joe fansites. Many suggestions have been given and met with hostility. Some of the sources came under discussion here [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#G.I._Joe_characters] and still ignored suggestions they be removed. Rain the 1 BAM 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Accusing me of having a vendetta is unhelpful. The wikiproject for fictional characters was created to tidy things up. I don't see why asking for fansites, unsourced claims of sensational value be removed. I just get reverted when I try to help and get told off for not understanding the series. I'm not a fan so perhaps I have a better perspective on Wikipedia's guidelines and not changing them to suit the fancruft. Anyway, I'll leave it up to GA reviewers to decide if they want sa GA article with fansite material. Rain the 1 BAM 19:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as the reassessment has been opened, let's take constructive commentary over there - this page is mostly for process-talk, and this has moved beyond that. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raintheone here is a request for comment. The GAR in question and the conduct in question is my own. Apparently involved parties can comment too, seeing as the main dispute started on a GAR, this seems the appropiate place to notify. The GAR is here at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/1 Rain the 1 BAM 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC
GAR on Chlorine was started, but it does not show up in the list here. I do not know enough about the process and the templates to find the problem, sorry. -- Stone ( talk) 08:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit unhappy about the new GAR on Netball. Specifically, we've got an ArbCom case open about the behavior of certain editors around GA reviews for Netball, and it seems to me that opening a reassessment might well be taken as WP:POINTY—or pointy-haired—disruption of the ArbCom case.
Would anyone mind putting this GAR "on hold" until the ArbCom case has at least moved out of the evidence phase? WP:There is no deadline for re-assessing an article like this, and we might get a more impartial review if it wasn't in the shadow of this case. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I started a community reassessment of this article here following disagreement over concerns brought up on the talk page. Thank you Hekerui ( talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping some editors would be willing to look at some of the old GARs (the ones approaching 2 months). I beleive consensus has been reached or is close on Dreamlover (song), Tim Lincecum, Guarana, and Jamie Stuart. I am less sure about Laurel and Hardy and Gery Chico. I would myself, but have commented on each of them and on some have even made quite a few edits.
AIRcorn
(talk) 04:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I have been through all of the older ones that I have not commentrd on, and kept or delisted as appropriate. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me that something more than a talk page banner is needed to notify primary editors about reassessments, [15] what do other editors think? Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if I followed the instructions correctly since my listing is not showing up [16]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I came across Detroit Institute of Arts today, and noticed that it did not go through the nomination process and was upgraded straight from start-class to GA. Is it deserving? Chris857 ( talk) 00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I just did my first GA review, of Oliver Valentine. It passed, and I added a GA template to the Talk page. But I don't see the green + appearing immediately on the article page itself. So either there is a time lag until some tool processes it, or else I screwed up. Can someone let me know if I added the GA template correctly? Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Many of our good articles have more than four paragraphs in the lead section in contravention of GA guidelines, especially WP:LEAD. What is the specific criteria for exceeding the guideline of a maximum of four paragraphs for the lead section of an article? Should the GAs with more than four be submitted to WP:GAR, tagged with Template:Lead too long or left alone? Binksternet ( talk) 23:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article criteria states that a GA must comply with the manual of style for lead sections. Four paragraphs is defined as the maximum length of a lead section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#The rest of the lead section. However, at WP:LEAD#Length, a pipe link to WP:Ignore all rules suggests that the four-paragraph limit can be exceeded if it "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia".
(Please expand list as needed, or strikethrough corrected entries.)
Request community reassessments for Warcraft II and Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. In individual GAR, both ended with new objections, giving me no change to response. And in Master of Orion II the reviewer wrote, "... indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews" - but Master of Orion II has many good citations, including several game reviews from good sources - some about just this games, and some about its use as the "gold standard" for reviews of other games. -- Philcha ( talk) 17:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is consensus on Hurricane Ivan being demoted from good article status, and the reassessment needs to be closed. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope this isn't an inappropriate place to be asking this question, but is it acceptable to just remove the Good Article template (without listing it for reassessment) when the template was added without a GA nomination or discussion in the first place?
The page in question is Hotel Koresco, and the page creator (who has since been indef blocked) added the GA template [17]. The article is literally incoherent; this is from the lede:
I'm being overly cautious by even asking, aren't I? I'm prone to that. So can I remove the GA template without nominating it for reassessment? Dawn Bard ( talk) 17:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Working from the above comment, this list gives articles which are currently tagged with {{ Good article}}, but do not appear to be GA rated on the talkpage:
The list is generated via CatScan; it takes all articles in Category:Good articles, and checks the talkpage for the presence of {{ GA/Topic}}, which I believe is only generated when a GA review has happened and been recorded in the history. It will thus catch any without a review, but I think won't spot any cases where it's been reviewed, failed, and the template is still in place. Hope it's of some help... Shimgray | talk | 21:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just removed the icon from another ten. Two of those were in the list above, one was by someone who thought the article was good, a couple were added when the article was created (probably copy-past accidents) and the rest were added by ips. I left a note at some of the talk pages informing them of WP:GAN (didn't bother with the ones put in during creation or the IPs). Is it worth asking a bot to run through these semi regularly? AIRcorn (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Many articles listed here could probably have been dealt with by individual reassessment. Considering participation at this page is low and in effect many are closed with only one or two comments anyway maybe we should do more to encourage individual reassessments. Community re-assessemnt should really only be used when there is a dispute over the classification of a Good article, not for routine maintenance of the standards. One way could be to only let articles that have been assessed, either through individual reassessment or GAN assessment, recently (month, week or some other set time) undergo community reassessment. It will mean some rewording to the instructions and some sort of informal check to identify any bad faith nominations (maybe a list here of current individual re-assessment that can be monitored). If any disagrees with an individual re-assessment it can then be turned into a community one without losing any work done by the assessor. AIRcorn (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why this isn't appearing: Talk:Luke Ravenstahl/GA2. Help?-- GrapedApe ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I am done with my review of Polish milhist articles up to GA class, and I have found several articles that do not seem to meet modern GA class standards. I have posted on the talk pages of those articles, listing the problems, and contacted their authors, some over a week ago, some just today, and I think for the articles that have had no action for over a week, we should start a GAR procedure. I am not overly familiar with GARs, so I'd appreciate comments from a more experienced GARer. The articles in question are:
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
One I've happened to come across, but I don't have time to follow up on. I wonder if someone could handle (i.e. list or whatever) it. Thanks, Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If there is an uninvolved experienced editor who could take a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1, I've recommended a speedy close as keep there. Thank you for your consideration. — Eustress talk 14:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this speedy closing appropriate? Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1 Seems to me there was reasoning given beyond someone is working on it. Thanks for assuming bad faith on my part.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This article was delisted on 12 May by User:Veritycheck as a result of a GA review, and then relisted on 13 August and the Review result retrospectively changed by User:Tarc without any new review that I can see. Personally, I don't think the article is a GA. Right now, it has five templates pointing out citation problems, MOS problems like "He" when referring to God in the body text, prose disasters like
I wouldn't even want to begin drilling down into the sources. So what is the most appropriate action now, given this state of affairs? J N 466 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I remember that individual GA review and disagreed with the nominator that it was unstable. Other issues were raised but I was not aware that he delisted the article. I again noticed it when it appeared in a catscan I run from time to time to find mistakenly, or not, added GA templates on unreviewed articles. I was confused for a while, but figured it was because of missing reassessments [18] although it still appears there now so there must be something else going on (maybe the missing current status parameter). The revert of Veritychecks close was out of process so there is a good case to change it back to delist. However the best course may just be to open a community GA review, as controversial topics should really be dealt through that process rather than individual reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
articles should enter in the good articles sections only by authors submission. why is it that any users can read "the tag with proposition" and notin their talkpage??[file:signature.png] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.110.199 ( talk) 02:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pink slime/1. I was involved in a dispute over the article earlier so it would be best if someone else does it. AIRcorn (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I was searching in the archives for the reasons why the article Organic food was delisted on 15 October 2007. For some reason, I fail to find it. Wrong date, wrong place or so? I think I need some help... The Banner talk 00:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to close my GAR at Talk:Henri Brocard but the instructions here are so badly written I cannot do it (and no, I don't intend to waste more than 5 minutes of my time trying to decipher them). I'll however list the problems with the instructions so somebody who knows what to do can fix them:
Thus I failed at both steps. Whoever wrote the above instructions - go take a course in manual writing. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
If a GA has dead links and no archives or replacement links can be found (such as by the WayBack Machine), then the content doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is a requirement for GAs (see WP:GACR). So why does WP:GAR state that "Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs...are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing." Till 12:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The Risk parity article received GA status on September 15, 2011. Since that time it has received about 25 minor edits to tweak the article and strengthen the citations [19]. On January 4th, 2013 User: Don4of4 began a reassessment and failed the article claiming it needed more images and wasn't comprehensive enough. I left a detailed response and challenged his logic and the misapplication of GA guidelines in his reassessment. He has not returned to WP since Jan 4th, the day he reassessed and failed the article. [20] I don't think this is appropriate procedure nor is it fair to me or the original GA reviewer, User: SCB '92. Can someone help me?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Does History of the Jews in Mauritius qualify for GA Reassessment? I was surprised to see it listed as such because it was so short. According to the criteria, shortness in and of itself is not an issue, but it seems to fail "broad in coverage", since it covers a very small portion of the history. I'm new at this, however, and I don't want to waste everyone's time with an official reassessment if I'm way off base, so I figured that it was short enough for maybe someone to just take a quick look? 184.187.183.118 ( talk) 21:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I request that this be a community reassessment and not an individual reassessment:
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 17:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Several of the current GARs touch upon two related issues.
Can we improve this in any way? Geometry guy 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to automate the listing of GARs on this page in a similar manner to the listing of Peer reviews on the PR page. I would also like to automate the archives. For that I propose that reviews be placed on subpages of the form [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ARTICLE NAME/N]] (where N=1,2,3,...) and are transcluded onto this page automatically using a category listing bot. A talk page template will be used to set up this GAR subpage. With this system, a GAR can be archived by changing a template on [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ARTICLE NAME/N]] at the same time as providing the closing comments: the GAR will then be automatically removed from the GAR page and automatically listed instead on an archive page. This will remove one of the more annoying steps from the archiving process.
The appearance of this page will be unchanged. Any views or comments? Geometry guy 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to go ahead with this. There will be a short transitional phase before the automation is fully operational. Experience shows that there will also be some teething problems. Please be patient and raise any issues here. Thanks Geometry guy 16:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There was a discussion for Greg Skrepenak which looked headed toward relist late last month or early this month, but it is no longer here and not at Talk:Greg Skrepenak. Shouldn't it be there by now?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 20:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Can't locate the discussions for delisting of Grameen Bank and Banglapedia. Can someone, please, lead me to the discussions? Aditya( talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
this GAR was closed after 1 delist vote by User Cirt; reason for closure was "content dispute", Cirt's delist vote brought up other GA criteria not being met. Can anyone close off a GAR preemptively without considering the merits of the GAR? I (and also Cirt it seems) do not think the article comes close to GA standards so what can be done now? Mr.grantevans2 ( talk) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The automation appears to be working well now, and, in my experience so far, archiving is easier. Let me summarize the new set-up.
I'm not mentioning several points here, but I'd like to know if this is workable. So far I've done most of the archiving: {{ GAR/AH}} was also a great help. Please try it out and comment. Geometry guy 22:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm wanting to flip through the current good articles doing quick checks to see if any ought to be reassessed. Is there any system set up for this? For example, anyway of telling other GA editors which articles I've double checked and when, so we're not all covering the same ground?
-- jwanders Talk 06:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The order in which GARs are listed has been reversed recently, so that the oldest nominations appear first. This actually happened by accident, but it occurs to me that it might be better to list GARs in this order. For one thing, it is more consistent with WP:GAN. For another it may help draw attention to old reviews in need of further comments or archiving. Any views? Geometry guy 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've asked a couple of editors to try out the archiving and I'm not convinced that the system is ideal yet. Archiving still takes too long, in my view, and I think the {{ GAR/link}} template is badly designed and not very easy to use.
I would therefore like to propose a fairly bold change, that we make GAR more like GAN (and peer review) by using a talk page template which is placed at the top of the article talk page. There would be a template for a current discussion, and a template for a closed one (which could be used instead of article history). This would mean, in principle, that closing a GAR would involve only one talk page edit, at the top of the page, to sort out all the banners, although reviewers could also add some explanation to the talk page discussion if they wish. However, in my view, a link, together with explanation in the GAR discussion should be sufficient.
Does this idea work for others? Geometry guy 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I note that Talk:José Martí claims that the article is a "Good Article," but I can't see any evidence that it has passed WP:GAN. What's more, if it was once up to scratch, it isn't any more and should be reassessed.
(In case anyone's wondering, yes I am planning next semester's syllabus, hehe.) -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 13:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I delisted two articles today, Air (visual novel) and Yoshitaka Amano as they both fail multiple GA criteria (both were listed back in 2007). I believe I followed the proper procedure for delisting, including leaving notes on the article talk pages clearly showing which GA criteria they fail to list. Two different editors came through and reverted the delistings, saying "there was no discussion first" and one claiming I'd "overstepped by bounds" and that one editor can't judge an article for delisting (yet one can judge for listing??). From what I read, delisting does not require discussion nor does it have to be listed here before being delisted. Both editors seem to feel otherwise so I'd like some clarification. Is it required to have a discussion before an article is delisted when it clearly fails the Good Article critera? If so, can the instructions be made clearer regarding this or the part about delisting without GAR listed removed if its false. Also, are obviously involved editors of the articles allowed to "revert" a delisting? AnmaFinotera ( talk) 00:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. 02:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
How are GA reviews such as this helpful to editors? How many delistings and failed nominations are contested simply on the grounds that the reviewers are not providing any additional information with their "reviews?" Is there some way we can require that reviews be complete and actually provide useful feedback? No article (not even an FA) is perfect so there should always be suggestions on ways to improve an article. If these articles are being failed, then there's obviously things that can be pointed out. A simple pass/fail w/ no explanation is unhelpful to everyone. will381796 ( talk) 18:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Madonna (entertainer)/2 appearing at WP:GAR?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Blood donation/GA1 discussion has been completed. Some edits (more than just formating for clarity) have been added after the GAR result was given. Do these late edits need to be removed? Can only administrators close the discussion putting a box around it? Snowman ( talk) 21:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
When I next have time, I plan to complete the GA review subpage implementation by providing a mechanism to generate a review subpage for an individual reassessment of a current GA. The scheme I have in mind is to combine the individual reassessment process with the community GAR process. Thus {{ subst:GAR}} will initially provide two links: one to start an individual reassessment on an article talk subpage (/GA1, /GA2, etc.), a second to start a community reassessment on a GAR subpage. Editors can then choose the most appropriate course of action.
In the past, editors have often either delisted articles with barely a comment, or brought them to this page when a community discussion was unnecessary. The consensus that every completed GA action needs a permanent link to a review page applies to individual reassessments as well, and I hope that this change will encourage better practice. I therefore also intend to restructure the current GAR guidelines to reflect this shift.
If anyone has any other comments on individual and/or community reassessments, now would be a good time to raise them. Geometry guy 12:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've now updated the guidelines. Please copyedit/clarify if necessary. I've also improved {{ GAR/link}} so that it can be used to record results of reassessments as well as active ones. This replaces the functionality of {{ Old GAR}} as an alternative to {{ ArticleHistory}} for editors who find the latter too complicated. Geometry guy 15:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone just did something to the GAR page. An entire article, Platinum Underground, is now plastered on the bottom of the GAR page and at least one of the GARs isn't transcluding anymore. Can anyone fix it? Majoreditor ( talk) 05:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent) This actually happened to me once before; see my block log. Ling. Nut (WP:3IAR) 07:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There were too many errors for me to sort at Talk:Max Mosley; can someone who knows the history there, and who knows how to correctly build {{ articlehistory}} please do so? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The following copy/pasted from WP:GAR:
"If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, do not close. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions."
Erm. This wording is more than a little too strong. Things need to be moved along. GARs are sitting around unclosed with no new comments for 3 weeks.
Suggest rewording to make it easier to close. Something like:
Can I suggest amending part 4 of the reassessment process; "Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects." to also include notifying the initial Good Article reviewer? Surely it's common courtesy for the reviewer to be involved in the process? Peanut4 ( talk) 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have been perfoming individual GARs as part of the GA sweeps project. The first couple of reassessments were great, as they led to substantial improvements. I'm having a hard time making up my mind on Great Pyramid of Giza. I'm not convinced that there is sufficient breadth of coverage (the construction theories section says that there are several theories but doesn't discuss them, and aside from the three main rooms, much of the inside of the pyramid isn't discussed). There is a separate article for construction theories, though. The reassessment is here. I've tried contacting all of the relevant projects twice, as well as major contributors, but I'm not getting anywhere. Another set of eyes would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Could GA articles be nominated for review just like other articles? That would leave GAR for disputes about the appropriateness of reviews. -- Una Smith ( talk) 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've had a GAR open for Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (U.S. game show) for nearly a month now and nobody's commented. Did I leave a step out? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I found this article through the Main Page and was quite surprised to see it listed as GA. It seems far from comprehensive, with scant references to substantial sources and weak prose. I haven't got the time, but could someone consider re-assessing? the skomorokh 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few days ago Malleus Fatuorum demoted Ireland without any notification other than initiating the GAR by notice before demoting it 15 minute later. When I questioned him about it, his reply seemed rather dimissive and uncooparative imho. I noticed that under the GAR individual reassessment instructions it specifically says "Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer." I don't see that that was done and though I am not a major contributing editor no notice was even given to the Ireland WikiProject either, so while the article may have some issues I think demoting from GA was improperly executed. Comments would be appreciated as Malleus Fatuorum has now gone into semi-retirement and his reply suggested bringing it here. Thanks ww2censor ( talk) 01:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Just for clarification here, it is my view that Ww2censor is being disingenuous in his claim that I "demoted Ireland without any notification other than initiating the GAR by notice before demoting it 15 minute later." In fact I delisted it without any notification whatsoever. That the [[WP:GAR]] template was on the page for 15 minutes is irrelevant, as I already tried to explain. It was not there as any kind of notification of anything, simply as a convenient way of generating the review page. Neither did I delist the article simply because it had a few "citation needed" tags; I delisted it because it was (in my view) inadequately cited as per 2b, and the amount of work needed to correct that was substantial. I take issue with Ww2censor's remark that my reply to him was "dimissive and uncooparative", and would urge him to get to work fixing the article instead of wasting further time here. Unless that is, he believes that the article does in fact meet the GA criteria, in which case a community review would be appropriate.
I have never delisted an article lightly; in the case of Ireland I judged that the amount of work required was too much to be completed during the hold period. The fact that the work has not yet been done six days later, or even started, tends to reinforce my view rather than the reverse. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 17:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse MF and his delisting. YellowMonkey ( click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 02:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think MF or STFU-MF as he is also known, has flouted the whole idea of process here. If an article has fallen below the required standard it should be first given the chance to come back up to scratch. It is a long and tedious process to re-attain GA status. Acting like a dick in response to the queries on this summary justice leaves me with no doubt that he is not in a fit place to remove the GA status in the first place. He is not a responsible editor, but in fact a loose cannon. It is just basic politeness to let other editors repair the day to day damage that can happen to these articles. I think a RFC should be made as this is clearly obscene.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/guidelines#delist I have to ask in what way is this confirmation to wikipedia process. Please outline in full how MF's actions comply with GA delisting here.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 11:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring point 4 of a guideline does not fall under WP:DBAD ( WP:BURO and WP:IAR seem more relevant). The delisting guidelines are only guidelines, not instructions, and guidelines exist to reflect consensus, not determine it. It is quite common for reviewers to exercise discretion about point 4, which was not bolded until July this year. I bolded it and added the courtesy notification recommendation to reflect and encourage best practice. I wish reviewers would follow it more often, as delisting without pausing for response has the potential to cause unnecessary problems and bad feeling, as this case illustrates. (Sadly, though, notification does not guarantee a problem-free reassessment.)
Reassessment is not a sickbed, and GA status is not a badge which once attained can only be removed with due reverence. GA is an assertion that an article meets the criteria; those who wish to maintain an article's status need to maintain its quality in line with these criteria. Don't blame the messenger.
GA is a process where individual reviewer judgement is foremost. Community reassessment is available for cases where the result of that judgement is questioned or challenged. I therefore welcome the initiation of a community GAR for this article, and hope we can draw a line under the angry remarks by both sides. Instead, as several editors are now doing, let us focus on improving the article and addressing its current failings with respect to the criteria. These are the raisons de'etre for GA. Geometry guy 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
What is going on with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 40? Approximately, the last ten days have not been archived.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Given that Talk:Homosexual_transsexual/GA1 seems to be requesting a group reassessment, is it possible for a system to be implemented that allows an individual reassessment to be easily converted into a group assessment? - Malkinann ( talk) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there must be a good and obvious reason why the GAR requested at Talk:Edward the Martyr isn't showing up here, but it's not obvious to me. Can someone have a look? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Facts not right. According to the the New York Times the dates do not match up.
[ [7]]
I am very new to this so bare with me.
Cleo Athalia77 ( talk) 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal#Introducing_GA_to_main_page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. OhanaUnited Talk page 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I nominated Tila Tequila for reassessment over a week ago and has yet to appear on the project page. I followed the procedure completely, but nothing turns up here. Did I make a mistake somewhere? Diverse Mentality 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers, I was unaware that individual reassessments weren't listed. I guess I'll give the article a total of two weeks for the problems to be addressed and delist if they aren't. Thanks for the help guys.
Diverse
Mentality 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to make some changes to the way we review Good Article nominations is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA review reform. All interested editors are invited to participate. EyeSerene talk 11:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I have crated a reassessment page - Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scotland/1 - however I created that page before I applied {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article's Talk page, so the box is pointing to a redlink (Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scotland/2).
Also, I cannot fathom how to transclude the discussion to the bottom of the Talk page.
Help appreciated.-- Mais oui! ( talk) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A GA of mine was recently put through the GAR process and demoted - no problems there, I agree on the assessment and currently not in a position to readily fix it. So I'm not expecting that to change, just an observation on the process.
However, the only way I discovered it was demoted was when my watchlist showed its article history being updated. Sure, in the history the GAR notice was added to the article, which I likely missed (particularly as it occurred on Jan 1) on my watchlist. The nominator didn't drop anything to my talk page on this, which the current instructions don't require and as it was an older article prior to the new GA process for having review transclusions, determining the major editor(s) would have taken some work.
Given that the new process to pass GAs do allow for easy identification of the original GA nominator, I would think that notification of this user should be mandatory (as it is done in the FAR process); other users can be recommended. Of course, for the older GAs, determining the user may be more difficult but it is possible. -- MASEM 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) - The GAR header was added back in September, and the last comment on the GAR was also in September. D.M.N. ( talk) 10:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I have been trying to follow the instructions in these reassessment guidelines, in order to correctly end my individual GA review (of the article Culture, but they do not cover:
I hope someone can provide some help on these questions. This whole business of going through this review procedure is very time-consuming this first time round... and may deter me from instigating future article reviews.
Please note: I am cross posting this enquiry on this talk page having mistakenly posted it a few hours ago on a "duplicate" talk page for another version of this page! I have raised the duplicate copies of page issue at the Village Pump technical forum. -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 06:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that most individual reviews are on article talk subpages, they are easy to link and I've been increasingly adding links from community reassessments. However, there's no point in editors doing a job if it can be automated, so I've modified {{ subst:GAR/header}} to produce the links automatically. Please report any glitches. Geometry guy 17:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I just de-listed Rocky. I think I did everything right to close out the GAR. Will a bot update the article history/milestones box or do I need to do that manually? Otto4711 ( talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I listed Flatworm several days ago and it still is not listed on this page. In the meantime, the nominator is getting pissed and is continuing to nominate it for WP:GAN, but I strongly feel that this should be looked at by more than one person. The article is in the category for GAR nominees, but it's still not listed at WP:GAR. Dr. Cash ( talk) 15:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Several hours ago, I created the community reassessment request, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/DeviantArt/1. It has yet to show up on this page, even though the instructions say it should automatically appear within an hour. Since I've never done this before, I'm concerned that I may have missed something. Help! Aleta Sing 03:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to request a reassessment of Slut Night for reasons I just explained on the talk page. I don't think I can actually request one through this process as I don't have an account. Can anyone create the reassessment page for me? I am a very occasional editor to Wikipedia and even if I did have an account, I don't understand the process. -- 74.138.229.88 ( talk) 02:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. I have just nominated Veronica Mars (season 3) at FLC, although it is currently a GA. Is there anyways this could be delisted without going through the regular process? I nominated the article at GAN myself, so there is no problem with the nominator. Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the good folks here pls figure out how to best deal with this GA? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Intelligence Agency/archive1 Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I came across Social Security (United States) while sweeping the articles with broken references category and realised this isn't meeting the GA criteria on a number of fronts. Despite the fact that I've been busy with GA noms and reviews in the past, I've never done a delisting. Do others agree that this should be a speedy delist? The current controversies section is but one section which exemplifies the problems that this article has. Sillyfolkboy ( talk) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently there's the backlog template on this page, despite there only being seven articles here right now. Do you think we can just remove it? Noble Story ( talk • contributions) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
AboutMovies put the article Betty Roberts up for an individual reassessment when withdrawing it from the community reassessment in progress. The article originally failed GAN (by me), and AboutMovies, the nominator, put it up for CR for that reason. After questions and comments by 2 editors at the CR, a sentence that was not in any source was brought to the nominator's attention and was removed by them.
I think the individual reassessment is inapppropriate because (1) CR is the proper place to reassess a failed GA review, (2) the nominator did this because he was going to lose at CR and wants to have yet another, second, reassessment, and (3) the article was changed as a result of the unfinished CR in a way that removed a reason failing it (for OR) so it can't be properly reassessed again. I am new to GAR, and an involved party of the original dispute, so I would like to ask others to decide and to take appropriate action. Thanks! Diderot's dreams ( talk) 16:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I just went to article alerts here and found three articles nominated for GAR since February, what happens now. The Windler talk 22:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be proceeding very slowly, as the reassessment was initiated February 14, 2009. See Talk:1918 flu pandemic/GA1. Is is possible to make it a community reassessment in order to get more eyes? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is it appropriate to nominate for reassessment a GA that is undergoing significant changes, i.e., as a result of an edit war? It seems to me that if the article is no longer stable, it no longer meets GA criterion five, and thus should be delisted. However, my nomination of this article for this very reason seems to have stirred up some controversy. What is the general consensus? Thanks, Vicenarian ( talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I share the interpretation of Bookkeeperoftheoccult ( talk · contribs). Further, I would suggest that the correct time to nominate for review is after the article has stabilized in some new state if you think it no longer meets the requirements. This way you know what the final state is without people arguing "But it's getting better/worse as we speak" during the review (which I suppose is why there is a stability requirement at all). -- Falcorian (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
A bot generated a listing for Good Articles in need of cleanup: Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing, Tom B ( talk) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
An IP comments: "That article should not be listed as a good history article. Only very ignorant people would not see how it is used as propaganda. It certainly has some people who try to balance it, but the bias is gross. That article ia dominated by the kind of people that we can all suppose. Kun."
It was last checked in August 2008 as part of GA Sweeps. See also Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_26#Nordic_theory. Geometry guy 11:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added an experimental section to the GAR page. Please see WT:GA#Good articles which are found wanting at FAC for further information and discussion. Geometry guy 11:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
There's currently no list (that I could see) of all of the archives. It appears you can only go one-by-one to find a particular review/date. In addition, the oldest archives are named Good article disputes, should these be renamed to GAR? If there are no problems with this, I'll move them and add an archive link indicating the dates the GARs in each archive range from. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the following is the list of all of the archives. I added the dates of when the review was initially opened, rather than when it was closed. I didn't rename the old pages since they are archive pages (and I don't want to fix all of the article history errors). Now that we have this list, is there a simple way to put this into a table to list on the GAR page? Tomorrow (technically today) I'll make a subpage with a list of all of the articles that went through community GAR at one point (or in some cases, at several points). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
1 (March 2006-May 2006)
2 (May-June 2006)
3 (June 2006)
4 (July-August 2006)
5 (August 2006)
6 (August-September 2006)
7 (September-October 2006)
8 (October-November 2006)
9 (November 2006)
10 (November-December 2006)
11 (December 2006)
12 (December 2006-January 2007)
13 (January 2007)
14 (January-February 2007)
15 (February-March 2007)
16 (March-April 2007)
17 (April-May 2007)
18 (May 2007)
19 (May 2007)
20 (May 2007)
21 (May 2007)
22 (May-June 2007)
23 (June-July 2007)
24 (July 2007)
25 (July-August 2007)
26 (August 2007)
27 (August 2007)
28 (August-September 2007)
29 (September 2007)
30 (September-October 2007)
31 (October 2007)
32 (October-November 2007)
33 (November-Decmember 2007)
34 (December 2007)
35 (January-March 2008)
36 (March-April 2008)
37 (May-June 2008)
38 (June-July 2008)
39 (July-August 2008)
40 (October-December 2008)
41 (December 2008-February 2009)
42 (February-April 2009)
43 (April-May 2009)
44 (June-July 2009)
Minstrel show was recently removed through this process, over uncited statements. I count exactly four, only one of them on anything important, and all of which I imagine could be pretty easy to cite for, which I will try to do in the next couple of weeks. Talk:Minstrel show/GA1 says "This decision may be appealed at WP:GAR" but nothing at WP:GAR indicates how to do so, nor is it clear whether the appeal must be based on the current state of the article or if I can remedy these few identified problems first. - Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia. Could editors of wikipedia please do Good Article Reassessment of Josip Broz Tito article. The article is embarrassing. The Eastern European Dictator is portrayed as some sort of pop star and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. Also considering he was responsible for war crimes,mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment makes Wikipedia look like ad for Eastern European Dictatorships. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this? Sir Floyd ( talk) 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nehrams! Sir Floyd ( talk) 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As the last 2 reassessments have both been contested based on the fact they are using summary style, i think we need to decide on the extent to which reviewers have to search for the citations in subarticles. Some articles, such as Jesus, were almost entirely summary style, and the subarticle also had summary sections, which could result in a sixth degree of separation linking to hundreds of articles.
How deep does a reviewer have to go until they give up? Or should they just add a cite needed tag to points they consider needful to cite, without searching the subarticle? If a cite needed tag is added, but the cite is in a sub- (or sub-sub-) article, should the cite be copied across, or the tag simply removed, or hidden text be added (so later reviers know it was checked)?
As there is no way to force editors to only add to summaries if the claim is cited in the sub-article, and many older GAs seem less than cared for, there has to be some limit on what is expected of reviewers, or guidance as to what is the editors' responsibility. Yob Mod 12:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't the text of the Munchausen item display what is actually in the "Edit" box? In particular, my support for a review (and my stalker's sniping). Noloop ( talk) 21:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Right now i'm reviewing Book of Vile Darkness and as it stands now it appears to fail WP:BK. Should this be delisted until then or what? Doing a quick google check i didn't find any other obvious RSes that could be used to show notability. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not particularly well acquainted with GAR, but I've become involved in the individual reassessment of Klaus Ebner here. It began over a week ago when the reviewer originally began a community reassessment, which I changed to individual since the article passed GA over a year ago. It quickly became clear that the editor was not solely measuring the article's worth by the GA criteria -- the multiple versions of the article that were automatically translated into other languages for other Wikis seemed their major concern -- and although most of the concerns are in regards to the notability/reliability of used sources, numerous editors have disagreed with their ideas of WP:RS. Now the reviewer seems to have abandoned the reassessment. I've left messages on the review subpage as well as the editor's talk page, and despite the fact that they are actively editing elsewhere, there has been no response. Where do we go from there? Could someone else take a look? María ( habla con migo) 20:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I've delisted the above article, but I've messed up the article history. Could someone fix it, please? Thanks! Awadewit ( talk) 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Over the past year I've noticed a trend for GAR reviewers to state or imply that an in-line citation is needed for each paragraph to fulfill criterion 2. My understanding is that all material must come from verifiable good sources, but that in-line citations are only required under certain circumstances (statistics, direct quotations, material likely to be challenged, etc) While it's helpful for articles to go beyond these minimum requirements, it's not required.
But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the Good Article requirements or maybe consensus opinion on in-line citation has changed. What are your thoughts? Majoreditor ( talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I am currently doing a GAR of Good Samaritan law Talk:Good Samaritan law/GA2. The page does not deal with the issue on a global scale therefore in my opinion it does not fulfill GA requirements. The main editor disagrees. Further comments... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. When Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've undertaken a GAR under the sweeps process, at Provisional Legislature of Oregon, which resulted in it passing. The steps in the process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps say "If the article passes review, in {{ArticleHistory}}, add an entry and classify the action as GAR kept." In all my years here, i've never edited an articlehistory, and do not actually know how to do this. It is a semi-automated task at all? Can someone assist? hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The conversation is transcluded from WP talk:GAN. I want the help of my fellow editors and reviewers here to stop this biased madness. Please help.
Just yesterday I nominated the article " Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)" under music for GA. However, an editor who was involved in a previous dispute of the article, User:Piano non troppo suddenly chimed in and started reviewing the article. His main intention is to fail the article and hence is claiming in short that "the article is a pile load of shit". I request my fellow GA reviewrs here to request him to step down from his biased review and let a reviewer not associated with the article come and review it. He should be warned against actions like this. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In summer 2009 I found the GA review for Megalon was faulty and raised a GAR, and LeGenD has a lot of work to improve the article. In late December 2009 I had an operation, and am not fit to continue as the reviewer. We'd both be grateful if an other reviewer could complete the review. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you guys have to be sick of seeing these updates by now. Again, when Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I've made a proposal that notifications for good article reassessment be made mandatory here. Lambanog ( talk) 03:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not know how to do this but could someone nominate American civil war? That article has many problems as underlined on the talkpage. It is incomplete and doesn't show the full scope and impacts/causes of it, only major battles. 198.188.150.134 ( talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
If an editor places a {{subst:GAR}}
template on an article talk page and initiates an individual re-assessment, clciking on the individual assessment link creates a new page [[Talk:''Article name''/GA''x'']] where x is the number of the page. However at the top of the article the text A
good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently undergoing a
good article reassessment. where good artcile reassessment links to
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Article name/x which is where a community reassessment would be listed. Can this be fixed in some way? ––
Jezhotwells (
talk) 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
{{GAR/link|11:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)|page=1|GARpage=1|status=onhold }}Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to determine whether it's on a subpage of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment or on a subpage of the article's talk page. Anyone have any suggestions for what to do about this? Pyrospirit ( talk · contribs) 19:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Erm, hard code the "Talk:", append the article name, hard code the "/GA", read the +"page=" bit and append the value after the equal signs...? Just a thought.• Ling.Nut 16:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
A proposal to promote this essay is underway. 174.3.113.245 ( talk) 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The so-called GAR at HIV appears to have been a significant abuse of process, and I am simply going to revert the delisting that this particular individual has undertaken. I'm not going to spend x number of days wikilawyering around this sort of conduct. Just a note for those who watch this area. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam, I observed that the articles on Christianiy, Islam, Hinduism, Osteopathy, Naturopathy,
Chiropractic etc. are good and positive and there are forks to the articles on Christianiy,
Islam and Hinduism which contain all the criticism. The article on Homeopathy as well as
its fork for criticism (' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Criticism'), on the
other hand, are both negative and bad; so can we make the article on Homeopathy good and
positive like all the other articles and put all the criticism on its fork? If there's a
rule that both articles should be full of criticism, then we must make the matter in the criticism fork available in the main article for Christianiy, Islam and Hinduism also. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Dr.Vittal ( talk) 04:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone here follow Category:Good articles in need of review? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I've recently submitted September_11_attacks for review (see review page) but got no replies. This is a very large article and I assume it would be too much work to review it and get it back to GA status, which is why I assume nobody answered. What should I do in that case? Should I delist the article myself? Laurent ( talk) 10:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
B'Day has been tagged for reassessment since May 2010. Should it not have been 'seen' to by now? Lil-unique1 ( talk) 01:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you guys add the discussion here? Thx Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 09:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if a few members particated in a GAR of Warcraft II, so that it is not swamped by those who swamped Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1. I don't want to influence those who partipicated in a GAR, and would prefer honest comment as more help for myself. IMO Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 was a poor review because:
-- Philcha ( talk) 18:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
-- Philcha ( talk) 18:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Warcraft_II/1 and the links from my contribs are OK. But when I try to link from Master_of_Orion_II to the GAR, I get an invalid link. Any idea why? -- Philcha ( talk) 07:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why Hlín has been listed as potentially needing reassessment? :bloodofox: ( talk) 14:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Would someone more experienced than me as to how the reassessment process works mind taking a look at 2006 Lebanon War? There's some kind of discussion there, but it looks pretty dormant; it's not resolved either way, and it's been sitting there for months. Shimgray | talk | 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This article has had too many editors. Administrator fast and careless editing / reverting has left this article with many points being repeated more than two or three times and yet not all points are demonstrated with each method. Interesting facts have been deleted by overzealous editors attempting to protect the article in their emotionally based style. Too many personal concepts have been added with no cites or basis. Again careless editing have left it fairly scrambled. Attempts at editing result in more reversion and confusion in the layout.
A complete reconstruct needs attention using the current supplied data. The article is also too long for the messages conveyed.-- 174.118.149.54 ( talk) 04:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Would someone take a moment to respond to a question at Talk:Real-time Transport Protocol/GA1? An editor wants to know what to do about GA reassessment when another editor started one, but never finished it. -- Pnm ( talk) 05:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of GAs with cleanup templates at the top of them... see Heinrich event, Air transport and the environment (United Kingdom), Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels. Johnfos ( talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've de-listed Al-Kindi. Its had a POV tag on it for months on end. And also it isn't good William M. Connolley ( talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have real concerns about Rcsprinter123 ( talk · contribs) who is conducting GA reviews and making some howling mistakes. Looking at the user's talk page and the number of warnings received recently, I question whether this user is competent to make any GA reviews and if so what can/should be done to address this. See Talk:Fund accounting/GA1 and especially Talk:Karl Marx/GA1. -- Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator ( Talk) 08:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this article should be reassessed because since the fair review it was given and it's subsequent pass. It's core editors have added an array of fansite references to then article, which seems suspect. When me and another suggested they be removed, we had a backlash telling us they are notable because they are GI Joe fansites. Many suggestions have been given and met with hostility. Some of the sources came under discussion here [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_92#G.I._Joe_characters] and still ignored suggestions they be removed. Rain the 1 BAM 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Accusing me of having a vendetta is unhelpful. The wikiproject for fictional characters was created to tidy things up. I don't see why asking for fansites, unsourced claims of sensational value be removed. I just get reverted when I try to help and get told off for not understanding the series. I'm not a fan so perhaps I have a better perspective on Wikipedia's guidelines and not changing them to suit the fancruft. Anyway, I'll leave it up to GA reviewers to decide if they want sa GA article with fansite material. Rain the 1 BAM 19:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as the reassessment has been opened, let's take constructive commentary over there - this page is mostly for process-talk, and this has moved beyond that. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raintheone here is a request for comment. The GAR in question and the conduct in question is my own. Apparently involved parties can comment too, seeing as the main dispute started on a GAR, this seems the appropiate place to notify. The GAR is here at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel Comics)/1 Rain the 1 BAM 22:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC
GAR on Chlorine was started, but it does not show up in the list here. I do not know enough about the process and the templates to find the problem, sorry. -- Stone ( talk) 08:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit unhappy about the new GAR on Netball. Specifically, we've got an ArbCom case open about the behavior of certain editors around GA reviews for Netball, and it seems to me that opening a reassessment might well be taken as WP:POINTY—or pointy-haired—disruption of the ArbCom case.
Would anyone mind putting this GAR "on hold" until the ArbCom case has at least moved out of the evidence phase? WP:There is no deadline for re-assessing an article like this, and we might get a more impartial review if it wasn't in the shadow of this case. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I started a community reassessment of this article here following disagreement over concerns brought up on the talk page. Thank you Hekerui ( talk) 10:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping some editors would be willing to look at some of the old GARs (the ones approaching 2 months). I beleive consensus has been reached or is close on Dreamlover (song), Tim Lincecum, Guarana, and Jamie Stuart. I am less sure about Laurel and Hardy and Gery Chico. I would myself, but have commented on each of them and on some have even made quite a few edits.
AIRcorn
(talk) 04:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I have been through all of the older ones that I have not commentrd on, and kept or delisted as appropriate. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested to me that something more than a talk page banner is needed to notify primary editors about reassessments, [15] what do other editors think? Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if I followed the instructions correctly since my listing is not showing up [16]. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I came across Detroit Institute of Arts today, and noticed that it did not go through the nomination process and was upgraded straight from start-class to GA. Is it deserving? Chris857 ( talk) 00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I just did my first GA review, of Oliver Valentine. It passed, and I added a GA template to the Talk page. But I don't see the green + appearing immediately on the article page itself. So either there is a time lag until some tool processes it, or else I screwed up. Can someone let me know if I added the GA template correctly? Thanks. -- Noleander ( talk) 22:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Many of our good articles have more than four paragraphs in the lead section in contravention of GA guidelines, especially WP:LEAD. What is the specific criteria for exceeding the guideline of a maximum of four paragraphs for the lead section of an article? Should the GAs with more than four be submitted to WP:GAR, tagged with Template:Lead too long or left alone? Binksternet ( talk) 23:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article criteria states that a GA must comply with the manual of style for lead sections. Four paragraphs is defined as the maximum length of a lead section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Writing better articles#The rest of the lead section. However, at WP:LEAD#Length, a pipe link to WP:Ignore all rules suggests that the four-paragraph limit can be exceeded if it "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia".
(Please expand list as needed, or strikethrough corrected entries.)
Request community reassessments for Warcraft II and Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. In individual GAR, both ended with new objections, giving me no change to response. And in Master of Orion II the reviewer wrote, "... indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews" - but Master of Orion II has many good citations, including several game reviews from good sources - some about just this games, and some about its use as the "gold standard" for reviews of other games. -- Philcha ( talk) 17:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is consensus on Hurricane Ivan being demoted from good article status, and the reassessment needs to be closed. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I hope this isn't an inappropriate place to be asking this question, but is it acceptable to just remove the Good Article template (without listing it for reassessment) when the template was added without a GA nomination or discussion in the first place?
The page in question is Hotel Koresco, and the page creator (who has since been indef blocked) added the GA template [17]. The article is literally incoherent; this is from the lede:
I'm being overly cautious by even asking, aren't I? I'm prone to that. So can I remove the GA template without nominating it for reassessment? Dawn Bard ( talk) 17:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Working from the above comment, this list gives articles which are currently tagged with {{ Good article}}, but do not appear to be GA rated on the talkpage:
The list is generated via CatScan; it takes all articles in Category:Good articles, and checks the talkpage for the presence of {{ GA/Topic}}, which I believe is only generated when a GA review has happened and been recorded in the history. It will thus catch any without a review, but I think won't spot any cases where it's been reviewed, failed, and the template is still in place. Hope it's of some help... Shimgray | talk | 21:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just removed the icon from another ten. Two of those were in the list above, one was by someone who thought the article was good, a couple were added when the article was created (probably copy-past accidents) and the rest were added by ips. I left a note at some of the talk pages informing them of WP:GAN (didn't bother with the ones put in during creation or the IPs). Is it worth asking a bot to run through these semi regularly? AIRcorn (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Many articles listed here could probably have been dealt with by individual reassessment. Considering participation at this page is low and in effect many are closed with only one or two comments anyway maybe we should do more to encourage individual reassessments. Community re-assessemnt should really only be used when there is a dispute over the classification of a Good article, not for routine maintenance of the standards. One way could be to only let articles that have been assessed, either through individual reassessment or GAN assessment, recently (month, week or some other set time) undergo community reassessment. It will mean some rewording to the instructions and some sort of informal check to identify any bad faith nominations (maybe a list here of current individual re-assessment that can be monitored). If any disagrees with an individual re-assessment it can then be turned into a community one without losing any work done by the assessor. AIRcorn (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why this isn't appearing: Talk:Luke Ravenstahl/GA2. Help?-- GrapedApe ( talk) 04:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I am done with my review of Polish milhist articles up to GA class, and I have found several articles that do not seem to meet modern GA class standards. I have posted on the talk pages of those articles, listing the problems, and contacted their authors, some over a week ago, some just today, and I think for the articles that have had no action for over a week, we should start a GAR procedure. I am not overly familiar with GARs, so I'd appreciate comments from a more experienced GARer. The articles in question are:
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
One I've happened to come across, but I don't have time to follow up on. I wonder if someone could handle (i.e. list or whatever) it. Thanks, Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 16:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If there is an uninvolved experienced editor who could take a look at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1, I've recommended a speedy close as keep there. Thank you for your consideration. — Eustress talk 14:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this speedy closing appropriate? Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1 Seems to me there was reasoning given beyond someone is working on it. Thanks for assuming bad faith on my part.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 02:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This article was delisted on 12 May by User:Veritycheck as a result of a GA review, and then relisted on 13 August and the Review result retrospectively changed by User:Tarc without any new review that I can see. Personally, I don't think the article is a GA. Right now, it has five templates pointing out citation problems, MOS problems like "He" when referring to God in the body text, prose disasters like
I wouldn't even want to begin drilling down into the sources. So what is the most appropriate action now, given this state of affairs? J N 466 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I remember that individual GA review and disagreed with the nominator that it was unstable. Other issues were raised but I was not aware that he delisted the article. I again noticed it when it appeared in a catscan I run from time to time to find mistakenly, or not, added GA templates on unreviewed articles. I was confused for a while, but figured it was because of missing reassessments [18] although it still appears there now so there must be something else going on (maybe the missing current status parameter). The revert of Veritychecks close was out of process so there is a good case to change it back to delist. However the best course may just be to open a community GA review, as controversial topics should really be dealt through that process rather than individual reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
articles should enter in the good articles sections only by authors submission. why is it that any users can read "the tag with proposition" and notin their talkpage??[file:signature.png] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.110.199 ( talk) 02:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pink slime/1. I was involved in a dispute over the article earlier so it would be best if someone else does it. AIRcorn (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I was searching in the archives for the reasons why the article Organic food was delisted on 15 October 2007. For some reason, I fail to find it. Wrong date, wrong place or so? I think I need some help... The Banner talk 00:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to close my GAR at Talk:Henri Brocard but the instructions here are so badly written I cannot do it (and no, I don't intend to waste more than 5 minutes of my time trying to decipher them). I'll however list the problems with the instructions so somebody who knows what to do can fix them:
Thus I failed at both steps. Whoever wrote the above instructions - go take a course in manual writing. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
If a GA has dead links and no archives or replacement links can be found (such as by the WayBack Machine), then the content doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is a requirement for GAs (see WP:GACR). So why does WP:GAR state that "Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs...are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing." Till 12:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The Risk parity article received GA status on September 15, 2011. Since that time it has received about 25 minor edits to tweak the article and strengthen the citations [19]. On January 4th, 2013 User: Don4of4 began a reassessment and failed the article claiming it needed more images and wasn't comprehensive enough. I left a detailed response and challenged his logic and the misapplication of GA guidelines in his reassessment. He has not returned to WP since Jan 4th, the day he reassessed and failed the article. [20] I don't think this is appropriate procedure nor is it fair to me or the original GA reviewer, User: SCB '92. Can someone help me?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Does History of the Jews in Mauritius qualify for GA Reassessment? I was surprised to see it listed as such because it was so short. According to the criteria, shortness in and of itself is not an issue, but it seems to fail "broad in coverage", since it covers a very small portion of the history. I'm new at this, however, and I don't want to waste everyone's time with an official reassessment if I'm way off base, so I figured that it was short enough for maybe someone to just take a quick look? 184.187.183.118 ( talk) 21:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I request that this be a community reassessment and not an individual reassessment:
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 17:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)