![]() | 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. |
Recently User:Peter Isotalo nominated the Saab JAS 39 Gripen article for reassessment under most odd circumstances. His very first edit in regards to the topic of the Gripen was actually making this nomination; normally I would have expected a GAR nomination to occur after less extreme measures, such as attempting to address the concerns directly via editing, a talk page discussion of the problems, or reaching out to the editors and wikiprojects that have been frequently involved with the article. In short, it appears that there was no corresponding effort to make repairs to highlight the issue to let it be addressed prior to the nomination, which isn't in spirit with the instructions given in regards to what an editor should undertake prior to such a nomination. Something quite unusual is happening here, I'm not sure how familiar the user is with the GAN/GAR process and the protocol involved; no other parties seem to have been informed of the nomination by the user, I only learnt of it due to another editor reporting it in the Wikiproject-Aviation talkpage. I would ask that the aviation community is given the chance to discuss the issue raised by the user, and the time to come to a consensus and make appropriate changes to the article is given, before the article actually undergoes a re-review. Kyteto ( talk) 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought I was assessing David Icke's written article not the article about David Icke hehe Trixpian ( talk) 18:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been watching a good article that has recently had some serious ongoing content disputes. The disputes relate to sourcing and neutrality, and have created instability -- all items with the potential to disqualify it from GA status. I would not want to send articles to GAR every time there is a content dispute, but it is also a bit embarrassing to see a GA with the "multiple problems" tag at the top of it for more than a month. So, I'm looking for some guidance from those with GAR experience. At what point should ongoing problems motivate a GAR? Is standard reassessment (by an individual) relatively safe when there are content disputes, or should it go directly to community reassessment? If folks want to know which article inspired the question, I can say, but I'm not trying to trigger a reassessment now. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have opened a GAR for Sukhoi Su-33 at Talk:Sukhoi Su-33/GA2 six days ago. However, the bot has not transcluded to page to alert the community to my request for re-assessment. What is the issue here? What have I missed? -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 11:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If someone starts a GA reassessment but does not bother to even create the reassessment page, would it be appropriate to close the case immediately? It could be disruptive if drive-by nominations were allowed. If it should be closed, how best to do that? Does the reassessment page need to be created and then archived? RockMagnetist ( talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Hurricane Keith/GA1 - so a GAR has been open since May, and the user who opened it has basically stopped editing. Is there a procedure for what's to be done now? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Freedom from Want (painting)/1.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 07:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I recently did a GA review of Tyntesfield and passed it. Subsequent to that, one of the editors of the article is questioning whether the article should be subject to a GA review. From what I can tell, there are some edits that are minor or stylistic changes, and a few good edits.
Because of the conviction that the article was not properly reviewed, does someone minding taking a look the the edits subsequent to the review, considerable work done during the review at Talk:Tyntesfield and the discussion at User talk:Rodw#Tyntesfield.
The contributor was unhappy that I had been spending a lot of time on close paraphrasing issues, so I don't know if that's where this is coming from. There were no constructive comments during the review, just a statement that I was going to far with close paraphrasing issues.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 15:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
the GAR process is taking far too long than it needs to and should be closed. i dont know if i could do it myself, so i'm asking here. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
issue resolved
|
---|
|
SO is there anyone else that can close this GAR? We've had consensus for closure a long time ago. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I've been holding my tongue for a while but this is getting ridiculous. There are nominations that have been on GAR since November and barely any movement has been made to handle them. I've had an issue with GAR for a while since, while I do reviews on pages for a majority of my time here, this is the most broken I've seen. I feel like this process would be better if there were people looking after it. Would it be possible to set up a new way to handle the GAR system, like getting people to keep an eye out on nominations or something like that? GamerPro64 19:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
What's the process if there is consensus that an article shouldn't be a Good Article, but not via this process? WP:VG had a discussion whereby the consensus was that Flappy Bird does not satisfy the GA criteria. Can someone just delist the article, or does this process need to be followed? Samwalton9 ( talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I brought Wildrose Party to GA a few years ago when it was a small party - basically as it was low hanging fruit. Over the passage of time, the party has grown into the official opposition and retains a position as a major player in regional politics. However, I've never maintained an ongoing interest in maintaining the article, and as noted at Talk:Wildrose Party#Updating there is a significant amount of overhaul required. Would there be any objection if I simply speedy delist the article rather than go through the dog and pony show of a GAR? Reso lute 22:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
For GA's going under community reassessment, should there be a certain point when they need to be closed? There are GAR's for Ben Affleck, Amanda Bynes, and Justin Timberlake that have been open since October with only "delist" votes. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 08:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the process is these days, and this is a tricky situation-- could GA regulars please have a look in here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
While fixing Articlehistory errors, I came across Talk:Spanish Civil War. It appears that User:Isthisuseful has decided to remove the article's GA status, through a somewhat abortive GAR subpage that he created in February 2014 and closed himself a few days ago. This GAR was listed on the article talk page, but was archived off the talk page in May. I know that individual reassessment and delisting are valid options through GAR, but this appears to be the second or third GAR initiated on the article by the same user. An individual GAR, by an individual who campaigned unsuccessfully for delisting in two previous GARs within the last two years, seems to lean toward subversion of process, so I bring my concern here for GAR folks to address. I have no involvement with the article itself; I will only be correcting the articlehistory so that actions previous to this GAR remain recorded properly. Maralia ( talk) 05:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by Pseudo GAR. I requested two GAR on two occasions over a long period of time. My hope was that someone with an interest would step forward to do the necessary work to bring it up to standard. You will see that all comments have been negative. It is an important article which is why I have listed as requiring translation from the spanish article. All these notes are included with my edits so should have been available to you. if there was anythig you wanted to ask me I would have been only too happy to reply. Isthisuseful ( talk) 23:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Good article community reassessment requested Isthisuseful ( talk) 21:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Spanish Civil War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Incidentally this is the third community reasssessment that has been requested. Both have not had a single view that this article has good quality. The community view has been unanimous that this is not a good article. When you don't like an editor implementing the community decision the easiest thing is just to ignore the community reassessments and to reverse back to good article why not? Isthisuseful ( talk) 21:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I've recently opened a new GAR archive ( number 60) and I wanted to ask whether I did it correctly. Appreciate your advice.-- Retrohead ( talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Heyo! This has been open for more than an year and the person who started it has become inactive. Can anyone please have a look? Much appreciated. — Yash! [talk] 08:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Can someone give me some guidance on what to do at Talk:Musical instrument/GA2? An editor opened an individual reassessment, I worked to address their concerns, and then they were indef blocked as a sock. Can it be closed, or should I get someone to take over the review? -- Laser brain (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a "hit and run" GAR on Isa ibn al-Shaykh al-Shaybani a month ago. Apparently it was not properly listed anywhere, and despite my request for clarification of his criticisms of the article, User:Mr. Guye does not seem to have bothered to re-check the GAR page. What is the proper way to deal with this? Constantine ✍ 19:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that I followed all of the instructions correctly but obviously did not do something right since my request Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA2 does not appear at the bottom of the list of requests on this page. I was hoping to get some assistance.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 03:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, wondered if someone familiar with the GAR process will take a look at the GAR on W. H. Auden. The user was expecting more responses and now suggesting someone close this. It looks like they have set up an individual reassessment rather than a community assessment, which would account for the lack of input. Should this be just closed down and a new one opened or should it just be switched over to community reassesment? Keith D ( talk) 21:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Would someone mind closing this? It's been open for over 3 months. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled across Talk:Religious views of Isaac Newton/GA1 and I wonder if Jamesx12345 meant to list it for community reassessment rather than individual reassessment. Should something be done about this? I haven't read the article in question but it has a "too technical" tag that's been there for a year and a half. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 22:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
There are some groups of very similar articles at GA level, usually created by the same people per group. This also leads to these articles all having the same or very similar problems, and if one of them needs reassessment, they are likely to all need it.
One such group are the articles on Paralympic skiing classifications: LW1 (classification), LW2 (classification), LW3 (classification), LW4 (classification), LW5/7, LW6/8, LW9, LW10, LW11, and LW12, and to a lesser degree the parent articles Para-alpine skiing, Para-alpine skiing classification and Para-Nordic skiing classification.
All are quite good in some parts, but are poorly written collections of seemingly random facts in other bits, and have their fair share of errors as well. Overcapitalization (of all skiing events, but also words like "an Ophthalmologist") is one typical problem, though not the worst.
As an example of the LW articles, let's look at LW6/8.
Or take LW10. From the lead: "LW10 skiers have been eligible to compete at the 2002 Winter Paralympics, 2005 IPC Nordic Skiing World Championships and 2009 Alpine World Championships." Only then? Not on other games and championships? Or were these the first three? As far as I can tell, these three were chosen randomly. The events at the end seem to be equally random, and the number of competitors need to be taken with a grain of salt (e.g. "At the 2009 Alpine World Championships, the class was grouped with other sitting classes with one male and one female LW10 skier in their respective downhill events." isn't true, there were more males competing but only one finished all runs.
For the other articles, we can look at an article like Para-alpine skiing (or is it "Paralympic alpine skiing", start of the lead?): the section "Paralympics" has loads of irrelevant information (which event was held on which day in which Paralympics?), with the number of competitors per class and gender for two events at the 2010 games given in detail, but not for most other Games or events. Worse, the numbers given for 2010 are wrong, you can compare them here.
Para-Nordic skiing classification contains things like an out of the blue "Nonetheless, in 2006, skiers with amputation still had a medical component to their classification assessment." (end of the history section), biathlon target sizes which seem to be incorrect, sentences like "In the United States, where competitors with intellectual disabilities in events governed by the Special Olympics, [...]" which don't make sense, and so on. The "Process" section goes into detail about Canada and Australia, without a clear reason why these two deserve extra attention. The "Paralympic" section starts with the same sentence twice (first and third sentence). Similary, the first and last line of the last paragraph give us the same information. Why we should know the names the Paralympic classifiers of the 2002 games is not clear... You get things like "The 10 km event was open to LW1 to LW9, and H to D.", but "H to D" is never explained in the article.
Basically, none of these seems to meet the GA requirements and would need quite a lot of work to get them at that level.
It seems a lot of effort to nominate all of these separately, considering that the main editor on these ( user:LauraHale) doesn't seem to be active any more. Is there a more efficient method of reassessing these in group? Fram ( talk) 14:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if I can WP:SNOW demote " Contigo Quiero Estar", " Captive Heart", and " Always Mine" from GA status to a redirect. I looked through Billboard's magazine for proof if the single ever made an impact on their music charts since several (roughly three) books claimed it did. I believe they were mistaken since the parent album did impact a music chart at a similar peak. I don't want go through the whole process of nominating it and having people !vote when it is clear that it should be redirected to the parent album's article. Best, – jona ✉ 20:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Help! Talk:Phengaris rebeli/GA2 is stuck on Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/Article alerts#GAR. Ping: @ Sasata, NK2015, and Nimswrit:.
I just bumped into Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/GA2 from 2013 that wasn't closed at any point. What should be done with it? -- Izno ( talk) 11:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
My reassessment located here has been running for a good six months. Isn't protocol to close after a month? Cheers. MrWooHoo ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed there is a GAR that has been open on Talk:Papoose Peak Jumps since 2013. I'm wondering if there is a deadline for individual GARs or should it be closed. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, posting re Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1. The discussion has been extensive, but with few !votes. The dialog has most recently centered on what sources should or should not be acceptable for military biographies. It can be found in section "1.6 Wrapping Up", or a via a direct link to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1#Wrapping_up.
Interested editors are invited to share an opinion, or to cast an !vote. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
G'day, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/William L. Uanna/1 has been open since May 2016. Can someone uninvolved please take a look and see if it can be closed? If it can be closed, please be aware that the listing on User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment will need to be removed manually as the bot is down. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I see from an earlier post on this page that the "delisting Bot" is down. I do not know how to remove Crazy Eddie from the " articles needing reassessment listing on the Project page. If someone could fix it for me, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 20:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Do everything you can to improve the article during this time.
Excuse me? If I notice a problem with an article (like its being listed as a GA despite not meeting the GA criteria), since when am I not entitled to bring this to the community's attention without committing myself to doing "everything [I] can" to fix the problem myself?
I know none of this is binding and it's probably just a mistake of wording, but what's even the point? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
the article once rightly passed GA reviewdoes not justify the current wording of the instruction. I don't need to know anything about ancient Rome to read the above article and know that the sourcing was inadequate, but apparently back when it originally passed GA review this was not taken to be the case. But to expect someone who doesn't know anything about ancient Rome to do "everything [they] can" is not going to help the article stay GA and in some cases might be counter-prouctive. In such a case,
a "drive by" GAR nominationwould not only be perfectly fine, but actually preferable, since having a bunch of "Good Articles" with disastrous sourcing (and probably a lot of OR) is not in
the best interests of the encyclopediaand such users will not be able to do much to improve that.
Do everything you can to improve the article during this time.is an easy call and should be removed as soon as possible, being as it is in disagreement with several core principles of the Encyclopedia.
three out of fivewere the three I have filed since March 2016. The previous two were the ones without a problem. This means that it might well not have been
at least partly my fault, as I had no problem filing GARs before the instructions were completely rewritten and made about 200% more complicated. I was not aware of this until a few hours ago, but Prhartcom was, and it would have been appreciated if he had disclosed that up-front. It might be interesting to count up the number of GARs that have been filed since last March, and poll their nominators (who are presumably the only ones who have read the current instructions) on whether they think the 16/03/04 rewrite was an improvement or not. So far it's 2/2 against the rewrite. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Where appropriate, please make an effort to improve the article in the interim.I can't find any place where the current wording was established by consensus, and now two people are calling for it to be changed. I think even
Where appropriate, please make an effort to improve the article in the interim.might be too much, but it's definitely better than the current wording. There are about a dozen reasons why the default position should be that such instructions stay out pending consensus, not least of which that I suspect it was added unilaterally by someone and no one noticed because the subpage in question has at most around 10% as many watchers as the main page. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
[m]ajor copy edit [that] [d]id not change any guidelines, which former portion of the guideline did you consider yourself to be clarifying, and where was the community consensus for that prior guideline? Ialso didn't notice until just now that your "copy edit" for "clarity" was actually responsible for how difficult to read the instructions currently are. I would therefore like to propose that your bold rewrite of the instructions eleven months ago be reverted pending consensus to instate it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) (edited 00:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC) )
There is some risk that a person nominating an article for GAR does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, or intends to commit to no more work than a "drive by" GAR nomination). Someone with an admitted bias against GAR noms should not be directly editing the guidelines for GAR nominations wihout seeking prior consensus, which is why I am asking if he did. I don't doubt that this bias only affected his wording on a subconscious level at best and that he did not intend to unilaterally rewrite the instructions to conform to his POV, but I now think there needs to be a serious overhaul not only of this page's instructions but of how process pages like this are structured, as there seems to be next to no oversight on what they actually say via their subpages. I would welcome suggestions on my proposal. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I want to convert Talk:Super Mario World/GA2 into a community reassessment. The original reviewer is inactive for one month. How do I do it? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Demi Lovato/1? It's been open since March, and hasn't received any input since April. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
{{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
is it OK to simplify it to
{{WP:Good article reassessment/{{subst:PAGENAME}}/n}}. Replace n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
? Mateusz Konieczny ( talk) 09:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there some tool to automatically list major contributors? Manually going through history is a slog Mateusz Konieczny ( talk) 09:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please close this? It's been open since June and hasn't had any activity since September. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 22:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Shenandoah (band)/1 has been sitting stale since September. I would like to see more participation here to help close the reassessment and see if the article still meets GA criteria. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Should this edit be reverted? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Hijiri88: could you break down your reasons for reverting? This all-or-nothing approach makes it difficult to see what the benefit of this would be. For example if your major (or only) objection is to the phrasing "do everything you can to improve the article", we don't need to revert the entire edit to fix it. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 11:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Do everything you can to improve the article during this time. It made them less readable, and so made GARs more difficult to open. I don't have any concrete figures for the whole project, but my first two GARs were opened without any problem, but after since the rewrite last March I have opened four GARs and three of them have been misfiled. I can't help but feel that my having been able to follow the instructions the first two times and only started making mistakes later could be partly blamed on the less intuitive instructions.The edit was pushed through without any prior consensus or discussion, and if more people had the subpage on their watchlist probably would have been BRD-reverted a year ago. There should be some argument in favour of keeping the current version, or it should be reverted. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Hijiri88, you could have at least pinged my name if you were going to evicerate my work. (I haven't been active lately and I just saw this.) — Prhart com♥ 04:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
[12] Are involved editors allowed close GARs? I'm really not sure. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure)." So I suppose the question is the the degree of Aircorn's involvement. Either way, due process suggests the review be reopened. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap shit room 07:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
(Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.)So it does not look like merely participating in a GAR discussion makes one an involved editor. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 08:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
However, discussions which have lasted more than 4 weeks can be closed with no consensus: in this case the status of the article should remain unchanged.I think Hijiri88's larger point that GAR isn't working is correct. But normal GA review isn't working in many ways either and there doesn't seem to be community appetite for changes. Maybe there is here. I have half an idea I want to incubate more before proposing as a way to lower the barrier to participation which is what GAR ultimately should be about (e.g. putting the community back in community GAR so it's not just Aircorn). However, I think the current guidelines as to how to define an uninvolved editor is correct and what to to do if there's no consensus is more likely than not correct. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate someone closing this sooner than later if nobody else will participate in its discussion. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is well written and appears to meet all the GA criteria, but its main contributor [14] has disclosed a COI. I'm wondering if a procedural reassessment might be in order. Thanks, Catrìona ( talk) 02:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
DE-9IM no body answer.
I was expecting others to pick up this article and fix it, since it is so highly trafficked. However, since that hasn't occurred, I would like to request a no consensus closure on the GAR since no one else has commented. Catrìona ( talk) 01:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
This could use a closure. Sooner would be better than later. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
"Create a new section named "Individual reassessment"" -- why? Pasting in Talk:ArticleName/GAn creates a heading already. Drmies ( talk) 19:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is rated GA, however, the nature in which the material is presented has clear WP:DUEWEIGHT issues particularly in its obfuscating or minimizing of detail regarding the Melbourne Storm salary cap breach, a public scandal which resulted in its championship titles being stripped following internal investigation. I think there needs to be more detail in the lede, accompanied by paragraph line-break (cluttering of text is often used to obfuscate details), and there should be section headers properly conveying these topics. Currently the only headers are "2010s", "2000s", "1990s".
Does anyone have any recommendations to share about this? DA1 ( talk) 19:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there a criteria an editor should meet to do individual GAR and FAR? There are 4 GAR/FAR that were made on articles in my Wikiproject by the same user, that has only been heavily editing since November 2018. I do not know if this would count as "controversial" and I did not want to come off as rude to the editor. StaticVapor message me! 18:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
As of 3/4, User:ImmortalWizard blocked for a week. As noted, ongoing ANI. David notMD ( talk) 14:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: Feel free to initiate a community/individual reassessment. I don't think some of them (especially Cody Rhodes) meet the GA criteria. I don't want to do that, for obvious reasons. It was closed without solving the issues addressed. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 19:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
My nomination of this article for community reassessment appears to be incomplete, possibly due to the slash in the article title. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The guidelines say:
Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:
- Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
- Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
- Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
- Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
I have some questions about this:
Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer.)?
My personal view (maybe evident from these questions) is that these prerequisites (mostly steps 2 and 4) seem unnecessarily onerous. I haven't attempted an individual GAR myself yet, but it almost seems like these prereq steps could lead to a sort of shadow review before the actual review. i.e. I identify some issues, tag them, and contact interested contributors about them. They try to fix them. I make some judgement about whether the issues have actually been fixed. Some discussion ensues on the talk page... that's basically a GA review! Colin M ( talk) 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Cold War has multiple reference problems, some dating back nearly 4 years. It does not meet the Good Article criteria. I looked at the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and frankly cannot see why such an obvious case should need such a long-winded and over-complicated process. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I subjected Laozi to a thorough critique about 6 weeks ago & no one has responded. Should it be left open, or delisted? (Yeah, I know, WP:BEBOLD. But I would rather have someone fix the problems. Or at least acknowledge they've read my critique.) -- llywrch ( talk) 21:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I set up Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of cricket to 1725/1 a couple of days ago but there's no sign of it on the GAR page yet and the link to its talk page from the article talk page remains red. I think I followed the instructions correctly but not 100% sure. Could someone take a look and see if there's a problem or if it's just that the bot hasn't run yet? Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Pending an answer to the above, I've carried out an extensive review of the article and posted a report, only a brief one, on the existing GAR page. My recommendation is delist because of suspected OR and unverified content, even after considerable amendments have been done. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to resolve the GAR page setup issue but it seems that sysop action will be necessary as I cannot move or delete the page. I've cleared GAR from the article talk page and, for the present, the article remains in the GA list until the issue is resolved. I'm wary of attempting to renew the process in these circumstances. Can anyone help, please? No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, please share your thoughts here. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
People familiar with GAR process, please take a look at this reassessment. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The archiving system has not worked properly here for four years. The last archive that operated as normal was Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 59. There are currently 180 subpages in Category:GAR/60 that are not in any archive. The previous archive system was a bit convulated. It required someone to manually edit a toolserver page to update the archive number when the current one become full. It was a little awkward as only a few of us had access to that page. This is all moot as the bot has since been retired. I have asked around and no one has seemed that interested in getting it going again. I therefore propose that we find another solution. The best my non-technical mind can think of is to cut the current archive system off at 59 and start again at 60 by manually adding pages to them. If anyone has a better solution that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple sets of instructions:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 22:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
So per this diff Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/archiving is redundant to Wikipedia:Good article review/guidelines. I'm going to work on retiring the former as I don't see the point of its use at the top of some of the archive pages, and we really shouldn't have a fork in the instructions. – wbm1058 ( talk) 02:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I have not located a bot request for approval. – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
March 2018: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 76#GAR archiving – wbm1058 ( talk) 17:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 73#VeblenBot, AnomieBOT took over at least some tasks relating to good article reassessment in January 2017. – wbm1058 ( talk) 20:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
After a discussion with myself, Username6892 has opened a community reassessment for Chester station (Toronto), so feedback is welcome! Kingsif ( talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven't got a clue what to do about the {{
ArticleHistory}} which is mentioned in the instructions for delisting an article. I've followed the instructions at
WP:Good article reassessment as far as remove the {{
GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
but am lost thereafter. Can someone please sort it out? The process is nearly as arcane as DYK, sorry. -
Sitush (
talk)
17:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Input is welcome for this GAR. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 15:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
How long does an individual GAR generally stay open? I like to think that my 230+ GAN reviews make me reasonably experienced with the GA criteria, and I've recently opened Talk:Red Tail Squadron/GA1, where significant work is needed. The nominator from back ten years ago is still active, it looks like, but what about other ones, where those involved in the article just aren't around any more and the project notices don't draw in any attention? I feel like these shouldn't just stick around in GAR purgatory, but I've got no experience on how long these should be left open. Hog Farm Bacon 19:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
— BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Just saw the review at Talk:HCR Corporation. This was not done without any effort at all. Should be Dlisted until a proper review. Looks like this has happened a few times.-- Moxy 🍁 03:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
This GAR has brought up concerns that the article may not have enough depth to meet WP:GNG or to satisfy the GA criteria for breadth of coverage. We agreed that it may be helpful to get someone else to take a look at the article and add their thoughts to the GAR. Would anyone be able to help, please? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
To the esteemed GA subject matter experts, I have several questions regarding the delisting of a GA through the AfD process. I’m not weighing in on the notability or deletion of the following example GAs, nor am I attempting to litigate the AfD decision referenced below. I am just using the below articles and AfD process as an example in seeking clarification from the GA community about the processes for delisting and deleting GAs.
Background: Recently, five GAs for Britney Spears songs were nominated for AfD and deleted and redirected as a result: Mmm Papi, Out from Under, Unusual You, Inside Out (Britney Spears song), and (Drop Dead) Beautiful. Prior to this AfD, I was under the impression that GAs went through the GA reassessment process to determine delisting and then went through AfD to determine deletion/redirection. I also noticed on the Out from Under talk page that "Good article reassessment" is listed under the article milestones with the outcome of "Delisted" even though a formal GA reassessment was not completed.
Questions:
Again, I ask these questions for clarification purposes, and not to litigate the referenced AfD decision. I know the answers to these questions are likely located on a policy or instruction page, but I cannot find them. Any guidance or resources you could provide would be incredibly appreciated and valued. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Per the talkpage above, the article received a 1 sentence review. The nominator ( Kyle Peake) is highly experienced and I've no doubt that the article should have passed GA review, but I find it hard to believe that a thorough review was just one comment from the reviewer ( The Ultimate Boss). ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I just created a reassessment for Jacinda Ardern and followed the template here. However, instead of creating links to the article, the template inserts gibberish links to the template about Ardern rather than the article as seen here Talk:Jacinda_Ardern/GA2. The same thing happened when including it at the talk page, it became complete nonsense when using the template given here. I have no idea how to fix it. What is more, if this is what happens to any reassessment of an article with template boxes, then something needs to be fixed. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Would've done this myself, but I'm not familiar with the process. As Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sailor Moon/2 is for an article that is not currently a GA, there's no need for it to be open. Hog Farm Talk 06:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Judging from the talk page discussions about, I'm not the only one with questions about the instructions. I've got four small proposals to make the process a bit clearer. Let me know what you think.
7. During the individual reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the discussion has concluded, you may close it. 8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. If there is no activity after seven days, reviewers may close the discussion as well
end of 9 and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). Replace the GA assessment value with the current class of the article.
Femke Nijsse (
talk)
09:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
(whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the commentsfrom 8. Individual GAs are not necessarily consensus driven as they are closed by the person opening them and usually only involve the reassessor and anyone interested in fixing the articles. This is more suitable to community reassessments. AIRcorn (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Femkemilene and Aircorn: I support the above changes as well. One note, regarding "The old project assessments will probably not have any value", I fully agree that part should be removed. It's a very outdated instruction, but I don't think we should require reviewers to re-assess themselves. That's an additional burden, and perhaps an unassessed article might stimulate someone to assess it and make changes at a later point. Given this has been here without comments for months now, I would suggest the changes be made? CMD ( talk) 17:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Average Joe/GA1 was nominated for GAR in December by an apparent clean start account, but that account edited for less than a week. They assessed it as a "quick fail", but did not make any changes to the article status. Seems a good candidate for someone else to take over. CMD ( talk) 17:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The individual reassessment says: "You know the article has not been delisted before"
The community reassessment says: "You disagree with an earlier delist decision"
Shouldn't the latter then not be "You disagree with an earlier delist or relist decision"?
Because when an article has been delisted and relisted and I think it should be delisted again, then I can't use the individual reassessment but also not the community reassessment because I do actually agree to delist it.
PhotographyEdits ( talk) 12:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
There are a few outstanding community GARs from 2020 that I have already !voted in which could use closure, or if unsure of closure, further input. They are:
Best, CMD ( talk) 15:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I just came upon Eckhart Tolle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and it appears to have been pushed through the GA process without proper review as a highly promotional fan-pov article (if not COI/PAID-driven). I don't recall ever being removing GA status from an article, and don't see a simple way to do so. Maybe I'm just in too much a rush. I don't see a simple solution to fixing the article, as even basic notability appears to be in dispute. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I could not find it in the instructions so I have obviously put the wrong number in Talk:Blast_furnace. Could somebody amend the instructions (or even better automate)? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I would like to reassess alone
Marcel Lefebvre. The problem of the article are very clear: 80% of the sources are either primary (e.g. semons from Lefebvre), come from the SSPX (the organisation created by Lefebvre) and its media, or from people affiliated with the SSPX (e.g. Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre).
However, I have never made any reassessment, so I would like to know if making an individual reassessment could be controversial in this case. Thanks in advance.
Veverve (
talk)
13:45, 15 September 2021 (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. |
Recently User:Peter Isotalo nominated the Saab JAS 39 Gripen article for reassessment under most odd circumstances. His very first edit in regards to the topic of the Gripen was actually making this nomination; normally I would have expected a GAR nomination to occur after less extreme measures, such as attempting to address the concerns directly via editing, a talk page discussion of the problems, or reaching out to the editors and wikiprojects that have been frequently involved with the article. In short, it appears that there was no corresponding effort to make repairs to highlight the issue to let it be addressed prior to the nomination, which isn't in spirit with the instructions given in regards to what an editor should undertake prior to such a nomination. Something quite unusual is happening here, I'm not sure how familiar the user is with the GAN/GAR process and the protocol involved; no other parties seem to have been informed of the nomination by the user, I only learnt of it due to another editor reporting it in the Wikiproject-Aviation talkpage. I would ask that the aviation community is given the chance to discuss the issue raised by the user, and the time to come to a consensus and make appropriate changes to the article is given, before the article actually undergoes a re-review. Kyteto ( talk) 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought I was assessing David Icke's written article not the article about David Icke hehe Trixpian ( talk) 18:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been watching a good article that has recently had some serious ongoing content disputes. The disputes relate to sourcing and neutrality, and have created instability -- all items with the potential to disqualify it from GA status. I would not want to send articles to GAR every time there is a content dispute, but it is also a bit embarrassing to see a GA with the "multiple problems" tag at the top of it for more than a month. So, I'm looking for some guidance from those with GAR experience. At what point should ongoing problems motivate a GAR? Is standard reassessment (by an individual) relatively safe when there are content disputes, or should it go directly to community reassessment? If folks want to know which article inspired the question, I can say, but I'm not trying to trigger a reassessment now. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have opened a GAR for Sukhoi Su-33 at Talk:Sukhoi Su-33/GA2 six days ago. However, the bot has not transcluded to page to alert the community to my request for re-assessment. What is the issue here? What have I missed? -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 11:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If someone starts a GA reassessment but does not bother to even create the reassessment page, would it be appropriate to close the case immediately? It could be disruptive if drive-by nominations were allowed. If it should be closed, how best to do that? Does the reassessment page need to be created and then archived? RockMagnetist ( talk) 20:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Hurricane Keith/GA1 - so a GAR has been open since May, and the user who opened it has basically stopped editing. Is there a procedure for what's to be done now? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Freedom from Want (painting)/1.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 07:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I recently did a GA review of Tyntesfield and passed it. Subsequent to that, one of the editors of the article is questioning whether the article should be subject to a GA review. From what I can tell, there are some edits that are minor or stylistic changes, and a few good edits.
Because of the conviction that the article was not properly reviewed, does someone minding taking a look the the edits subsequent to the review, considerable work done during the review at Talk:Tyntesfield and the discussion at User talk:Rodw#Tyntesfield.
The contributor was unhappy that I had been spending a lot of time on close paraphrasing issues, so I don't know if that's where this is coming from. There were no constructive comments during the review, just a statement that I was going to far with close paraphrasing issues.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 15:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
the GAR process is taking far too long than it needs to and should be closed. i dont know if i could do it myself, so i'm asking here. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
issue resolved
|
---|
|
SO is there anyone else that can close this GAR? We've had consensus for closure a long time ago. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I've been holding my tongue for a while but this is getting ridiculous. There are nominations that have been on GAR since November and barely any movement has been made to handle them. I've had an issue with GAR for a while since, while I do reviews on pages for a majority of my time here, this is the most broken I've seen. I feel like this process would be better if there were people looking after it. Would it be possible to set up a new way to handle the GAR system, like getting people to keep an eye out on nominations or something like that? GamerPro64 19:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
What's the process if there is consensus that an article shouldn't be a Good Article, but not via this process? WP:VG had a discussion whereby the consensus was that Flappy Bird does not satisfy the GA criteria. Can someone just delist the article, or does this process need to be followed? Samwalton9 ( talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I brought Wildrose Party to GA a few years ago when it was a small party - basically as it was low hanging fruit. Over the passage of time, the party has grown into the official opposition and retains a position as a major player in regional politics. However, I've never maintained an ongoing interest in maintaining the article, and as noted at Talk:Wildrose Party#Updating there is a significant amount of overhaul required. Would there be any objection if I simply speedy delist the article rather than go through the dog and pony show of a GAR? Reso lute 22:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
For GA's going under community reassessment, should there be a certain point when they need to be closed? There are GAR's for Ben Affleck, Amanda Bynes, and Justin Timberlake that have been open since October with only "delist" votes. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 08:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the process is these days, and this is a tricky situation-- could GA regulars please have a look in here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
While fixing Articlehistory errors, I came across Talk:Spanish Civil War. It appears that User:Isthisuseful has decided to remove the article's GA status, through a somewhat abortive GAR subpage that he created in February 2014 and closed himself a few days ago. This GAR was listed on the article talk page, but was archived off the talk page in May. I know that individual reassessment and delisting are valid options through GAR, but this appears to be the second or third GAR initiated on the article by the same user. An individual GAR, by an individual who campaigned unsuccessfully for delisting in two previous GARs within the last two years, seems to lean toward subversion of process, so I bring my concern here for GAR folks to address. I have no involvement with the article itself; I will only be correcting the articlehistory so that actions previous to this GAR remain recorded properly. Maralia ( talk) 05:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by Pseudo GAR. I requested two GAR on two occasions over a long period of time. My hope was that someone with an interest would step forward to do the necessary work to bring it up to standard. You will see that all comments have been negative. It is an important article which is why I have listed as requiring translation from the spanish article. All these notes are included with my edits so should have been available to you. if there was anythig you wanted to ask me I would have been only too happy to reply. Isthisuseful ( talk) 23:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Good article community reassessment requested Isthisuseful ( talk) 21:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Spanish Civil War, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
Incidentally this is the third community reasssessment that has been requested. Both have not had a single view that this article has good quality. The community view has been unanimous that this is not a good article. When you don't like an editor implementing the community decision the easiest thing is just to ignore the community reassessments and to reverse back to good article why not? Isthisuseful ( talk) 21:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I've recently opened a new GAR archive ( number 60) and I wanted to ask whether I did it correctly. Appreciate your advice.-- Retrohead ( talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Heyo! This has been open for more than an year and the person who started it has become inactive. Can anyone please have a look? Much appreciated. — Yash! [talk] 08:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Can someone give me some guidance on what to do at Talk:Musical instrument/GA2? An editor opened an individual reassessment, I worked to address their concerns, and then they were indef blocked as a sock. Can it be closed, or should I get someone to take over the review? -- Laser brain (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There was a "hit and run" GAR on Isa ibn al-Shaykh al-Shaybani a month ago. Apparently it was not properly listed anywhere, and despite my request for clarification of his criticisms of the article, User:Mr. Guye does not seem to have bothered to re-check the GAR page. What is the proper way to deal with this? Constantine ✍ 19:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that I followed all of the instructions correctly but obviously did not do something right since my request Talk:Goodbye to Language/GA2 does not appear at the bottom of the list of requests on this page. I was hoping to get some assistance.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 03:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, wondered if someone familiar with the GAR process will take a look at the GAR on W. H. Auden. The user was expecting more responses and now suggesting someone close this. It looks like they have set up an individual reassessment rather than a community assessment, which would account for the lack of input. Should this be just closed down and a new one opened or should it just be switched over to community reassesment? Keith D ( talk) 21:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Would someone mind closing this? It's been open for over 3 months. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled across Talk:Religious views of Isaac Newton/GA1 and I wonder if Jamesx12345 meant to list it for community reassessment rather than individual reassessment. Should something be done about this? I haven't read the article in question but it has a "too technical" tag that's been there for a year and a half. — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 22:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
There are some groups of very similar articles at GA level, usually created by the same people per group. This also leads to these articles all having the same or very similar problems, and if one of them needs reassessment, they are likely to all need it.
One such group are the articles on Paralympic skiing classifications: LW1 (classification), LW2 (classification), LW3 (classification), LW4 (classification), LW5/7, LW6/8, LW9, LW10, LW11, and LW12, and to a lesser degree the parent articles Para-alpine skiing, Para-alpine skiing classification and Para-Nordic skiing classification.
All are quite good in some parts, but are poorly written collections of seemingly random facts in other bits, and have their fair share of errors as well. Overcapitalization (of all skiing events, but also words like "an Ophthalmologist") is one typical problem, though not the worst.
As an example of the LW articles, let's look at LW6/8.
Or take LW10. From the lead: "LW10 skiers have been eligible to compete at the 2002 Winter Paralympics, 2005 IPC Nordic Skiing World Championships and 2009 Alpine World Championships." Only then? Not on other games and championships? Or were these the first three? As far as I can tell, these three were chosen randomly. The events at the end seem to be equally random, and the number of competitors need to be taken with a grain of salt (e.g. "At the 2009 Alpine World Championships, the class was grouped with other sitting classes with one male and one female LW10 skier in their respective downhill events." isn't true, there were more males competing but only one finished all runs.
For the other articles, we can look at an article like Para-alpine skiing (or is it "Paralympic alpine skiing", start of the lead?): the section "Paralympics" has loads of irrelevant information (which event was held on which day in which Paralympics?), with the number of competitors per class and gender for two events at the 2010 games given in detail, but not for most other Games or events. Worse, the numbers given for 2010 are wrong, you can compare them here.
Para-Nordic skiing classification contains things like an out of the blue "Nonetheless, in 2006, skiers with amputation still had a medical component to their classification assessment." (end of the history section), biathlon target sizes which seem to be incorrect, sentences like "In the United States, where competitors with intellectual disabilities in events governed by the Special Olympics, [...]" which don't make sense, and so on. The "Process" section goes into detail about Canada and Australia, without a clear reason why these two deserve extra attention. The "Paralympic" section starts with the same sentence twice (first and third sentence). Similary, the first and last line of the last paragraph give us the same information. Why we should know the names the Paralympic classifiers of the 2002 games is not clear... You get things like "The 10 km event was open to LW1 to LW9, and H to D.", but "H to D" is never explained in the article.
Basically, none of these seems to meet the GA requirements and would need quite a lot of work to get them at that level.
It seems a lot of effort to nominate all of these separately, considering that the main editor on these ( user:LauraHale) doesn't seem to be active any more. Is there a more efficient method of reassessing these in group? Fram ( talk) 14:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if I can WP:SNOW demote " Contigo Quiero Estar", " Captive Heart", and " Always Mine" from GA status to a redirect. I looked through Billboard's magazine for proof if the single ever made an impact on their music charts since several (roughly three) books claimed it did. I believe they were mistaken since the parent album did impact a music chart at a similar peak. I don't want go through the whole process of nominating it and having people !vote when it is clear that it should be redirected to the parent album's article. Best, – jona ✉ 20:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Help! Talk:Phengaris rebeli/GA2 is stuck on Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/Article alerts#GAR. Ping: @ Sasata, NK2015, and Nimswrit:.
I just bumped into Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/GA2 from 2013 that wasn't closed at any point. What should be done with it? -- Izno ( talk) 11:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
My reassessment located here has been running for a good six months. Isn't protocol to close after a month? Cheers. MrWooHoo ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed there is a GAR that has been open on Talk:Papoose Peak Jumps since 2013. I'm wondering if there is a deadline for individual GARs or should it be closed. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, posting re Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1. The discussion has been extensive, but with few !votes. The dialog has most recently centered on what sources should or should not be acceptable for military biographies. It can be found in section "1.6 Wrapping Up", or a via a direct link to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Joachim_Helbig/1#Wrapping_up.
Interested editors are invited to share an opinion, or to cast an !vote. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
G'day, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/William L. Uanna/1 has been open since May 2016. Can someone uninvolved please take a look and see if it can be closed? If it can be closed, please be aware that the listing on User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment will need to be removed manually as the bot is down. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 01:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I see from an earlier post on this page that the "delisting Bot" is down. I do not know how to remove Crazy Eddie from the " articles needing reassessment listing on the Project page. If someone could fix it for me, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 20:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Do everything you can to improve the article during this time.
Excuse me? If I notice a problem with an article (like its being listed as a GA despite not meeting the GA criteria), since when am I not entitled to bring this to the community's attention without committing myself to doing "everything [I] can" to fix the problem myself?
I know none of this is binding and it's probably just a mistake of wording, but what's even the point? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
the article once rightly passed GA reviewdoes not justify the current wording of the instruction. I don't need to know anything about ancient Rome to read the above article and know that the sourcing was inadequate, but apparently back when it originally passed GA review this was not taken to be the case. But to expect someone who doesn't know anything about ancient Rome to do "everything [they] can" is not going to help the article stay GA and in some cases might be counter-prouctive. In such a case,
a "drive by" GAR nominationwould not only be perfectly fine, but actually preferable, since having a bunch of "Good Articles" with disastrous sourcing (and probably a lot of OR) is not in
the best interests of the encyclopediaand such users will not be able to do much to improve that.
Do everything you can to improve the article during this time.is an easy call and should be removed as soon as possible, being as it is in disagreement with several core principles of the Encyclopedia.
three out of fivewere the three I have filed since March 2016. The previous two were the ones without a problem. This means that it might well not have been
at least partly my fault, as I had no problem filing GARs before the instructions were completely rewritten and made about 200% more complicated. I was not aware of this until a few hours ago, but Prhartcom was, and it would have been appreciated if he had disclosed that up-front. It might be interesting to count up the number of GARs that have been filed since last March, and poll their nominators (who are presumably the only ones who have read the current instructions) on whether they think the 16/03/04 rewrite was an improvement or not. So far it's 2/2 against the rewrite. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Where appropriate, please make an effort to improve the article in the interim.I can't find any place where the current wording was established by consensus, and now two people are calling for it to be changed. I think even
Where appropriate, please make an effort to improve the article in the interim.might be too much, but it's definitely better than the current wording. There are about a dozen reasons why the default position should be that such instructions stay out pending consensus, not least of which that I suspect it was added unilaterally by someone and no one noticed because the subpage in question has at most around 10% as many watchers as the main page. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
[m]ajor copy edit [that] [d]id not change any guidelines, which former portion of the guideline did you consider yourself to be clarifying, and where was the community consensus for that prior guideline? Ialso didn't notice until just now that your "copy edit" for "clarity" was actually responsible for how difficult to read the instructions currently are. I would therefore like to propose that your bold rewrite of the instructions eleven months ago be reverted pending consensus to instate it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 22:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC) (edited 00:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC) )
There is some risk that a person nominating an article for GAR does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, or intends to commit to no more work than a "drive by" GAR nomination). Someone with an admitted bias against GAR noms should not be directly editing the guidelines for GAR nominations wihout seeking prior consensus, which is why I am asking if he did. I don't doubt that this bias only affected his wording on a subconscious level at best and that he did not intend to unilaterally rewrite the instructions to conform to his POV, but I now think there needs to be a serious overhaul not only of this page's instructions but of how process pages like this are structured, as there seems to be next to no oversight on what they actually say via their subpages. I would welcome suggestions on my proposal. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 00:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I want to convert Talk:Super Mario World/GA2 into a community reassessment. The original reviewer is inactive for one month. How do I do it? -- George Ho ( talk) 03:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please close Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Demi Lovato/1? It's been open since March, and hasn't received any input since April. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
{{WP:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
is it OK to simplify it to
{{WP:Good article reassessment/{{subst:PAGENAME}}/n}}. Replace n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created.
? Mateusz Konieczny ( talk) 09:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there some tool to automatically list major contributors? Manually going through history is a slog Mateusz Konieczny ( talk) 09:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please close this? It's been open since June and hasn't had any activity since September. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 22:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Shenandoah (band)/1 has been sitting stale since September. I would like to see more participation here to help close the reassessment and see if the article still meets GA criteria. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Should this edit be reverted? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Hijiri88: could you break down your reasons for reverting? This all-or-nothing approach makes it difficult to see what the benefit of this would be. For example if your major (or only) objection is to the phrasing "do everything you can to improve the article", we don't need to revert the entire edit to fix it. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 11:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Do everything you can to improve the article during this time. It made them less readable, and so made GARs more difficult to open. I don't have any concrete figures for the whole project, but my first two GARs were opened without any problem, but after since the rewrite last March I have opened four GARs and three of them have been misfiled. I can't help but feel that my having been able to follow the instructions the first two times and only started making mistakes later could be partly blamed on the less intuitive instructions.The edit was pushed through without any prior consensus or discussion, and if more people had the subpage on their watchlist probably would have been BRD-reverted a year ago. There should be some argument in favour of keeping the current version, or it should be reverted. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 02:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Hijiri88, you could have at least pinged my name if you were going to evicerate my work. (I haven't been active lately and I just saw this.) — Prhart com♥ 04:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
[12] Are involved editors allowed close GARs? I'm really not sure. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
When the reassessment discussion has concluded, any uninvolved editor may close it (if needed, a request may be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure)." So I suppose the question is the the degree of Aircorn's involvement. Either way, due process suggests the review be reopened. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap shit room 07:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
(Significant contributors to the article are "involved", as are reassessment nominators, unless the closure involves withdrawing the nomination; editors are not usually considered to be "involved" unless they have contributed significantly to GA disagreements about the article prior to the community reassessment.)So it does not look like merely participating in a GAR discussion makes one an involved editor. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 08:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
However, discussions which have lasted more than 4 weeks can be closed with no consensus: in this case the status of the article should remain unchanged.I think Hijiri88's larger point that GAR isn't working is correct. But normal GA review isn't working in many ways either and there doesn't seem to be community appetite for changes. Maybe there is here. I have half an idea I want to incubate more before proposing as a way to lower the barrier to participation which is what GAR ultimately should be about (e.g. putting the community back in community GAR so it's not just Aircorn). However, I think the current guidelines as to how to define an uninvolved editor is correct and what to to do if there's no consensus is more likely than not correct. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate someone closing this sooner than later if nobody else will participate in its discussion. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
This article is well written and appears to meet all the GA criteria, but its main contributor [14] has disclosed a COI. I'm wondering if a procedural reassessment might be in order. Thanks, Catrìona ( talk) 02:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
DE-9IM no body answer.
I was expecting others to pick up this article and fix it, since it is so highly trafficked. However, since that hasn't occurred, I would like to request a no consensus closure on the GAR since no one else has commented. Catrìona ( talk) 01:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
This could use a closure. Sooner would be better than later. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
"Create a new section named "Individual reassessment"" -- why? Pasting in Talk:ArticleName/GAn creates a heading already. Drmies ( talk) 19:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is rated GA, however, the nature in which the material is presented has clear WP:DUEWEIGHT issues particularly in its obfuscating or minimizing of detail regarding the Melbourne Storm salary cap breach, a public scandal which resulted in its championship titles being stripped following internal investigation. I think there needs to be more detail in the lede, accompanied by paragraph line-break (cluttering of text is often used to obfuscate details), and there should be section headers properly conveying these topics. Currently the only headers are "2010s", "2000s", "1990s".
Does anyone have any recommendations to share about this? DA1 ( talk) 19:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there a criteria an editor should meet to do individual GAR and FAR? There are 4 GAR/FAR that were made on articles in my Wikiproject by the same user, that has only been heavily editing since November 2018. I do not know if this would count as "controversial" and I did not want to come off as rude to the editor. StaticVapor message me! 18:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
As of 3/4, User:ImmortalWizard blocked for a week. As noted, ongoing ANI. David notMD ( talk) 14:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: Feel free to initiate a community/individual reassessment. I don't think some of them (especially Cody Rhodes) meet the GA criteria. I don't want to do that, for obvious reasons. It was closed without solving the issues addressed. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 19:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
My nomination of this article for community reassessment appears to be incomplete, possibly due to the slash in the article title. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The guidelines say:
Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:
- Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
- Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
- Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.
- Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
I have some questions about this:
Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer.)?
My personal view (maybe evident from these questions) is that these prerequisites (mostly steps 2 and 4) seem unnecessarily onerous. I haven't attempted an individual GAR myself yet, but it almost seems like these prereq steps could lead to a sort of shadow review before the actual review. i.e. I identify some issues, tag them, and contact interested contributors about them. They try to fix them. I make some judgement about whether the issues have actually been fixed. Some discussion ensues on the talk page... that's basically a GA review! Colin M ( talk) 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The article Cold War has multiple reference problems, some dating back nearly 4 years. It does not meet the Good Article criteria. I looked at the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and frankly cannot see why such an obvious case should need such a long-winded and over-complicated process. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I subjected Laozi to a thorough critique about 6 weeks ago & no one has responded. Should it be left open, or delisted? (Yeah, I know, WP:BEBOLD. But I would rather have someone fix the problems. Or at least acknowledge they've read my critique.) -- llywrch ( talk) 21:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I set up Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of cricket to 1725/1 a couple of days ago but there's no sign of it on the GAR page yet and the link to its talk page from the article talk page remains red. I think I followed the instructions correctly but not 100% sure. Could someone take a look and see if there's a problem or if it's just that the bot hasn't run yet? Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Pending an answer to the above, I've carried out an extensive review of the article and posted a report, only a brief one, on the existing GAR page. My recommendation is delist because of suspected OR and unverified content, even after considerable amendments have been done. No Great Shaker ( talk) 09:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to resolve the GAR page setup issue but it seems that sysop action will be necessary as I cannot move or delete the page. I've cleared GAR from the article talk page and, for the present, the article remains in the GA list until the issue is resolved. I'm wary of attempting to renew the process in these circumstances. Can anyone help, please? No Great Shaker ( talk) 20:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, please share your thoughts here. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
People familiar with GAR process, please take a look at this reassessment. --- C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The archiving system has not worked properly here for four years. The last archive that operated as normal was Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 59. There are currently 180 subpages in Category:GAR/60 that are not in any archive. The previous archive system was a bit convulated. It required someone to manually edit a toolserver page to update the archive number when the current one become full. It was a little awkward as only a few of us had access to that page. This is all moot as the bot has since been retired. I have asked around and no one has seemed that interested in getting it going again. I therefore propose that we find another solution. The best my non-technical mind can think of is to cut the current archive system off at 59 and start again at 60 by manually adding pages to them. If anyone has a better solution that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple sets of instructions:
— wbm1058 ( talk) 22:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
So per this diff Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/archiving is redundant to Wikipedia:Good article review/guidelines. I'm going to work on retiring the former as I don't see the point of its use at the top of some of the archive pages, and we really shouldn't have a fork in the instructions. – wbm1058 ( talk) 02:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I have not located a bot request for approval. – wbm1058 ( talk) 22:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
March 2018: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 76#GAR archiving – wbm1058 ( talk) 17:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 73#VeblenBot, AnomieBOT took over at least some tasks relating to good article reassessment in January 2017. – wbm1058 ( talk) 20:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
After a discussion with myself, Username6892 has opened a community reassessment for Chester station (Toronto), so feedback is welcome! Kingsif ( talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I haven't got a clue what to do about the {{
ArticleHistory}} which is mentioned in the instructions for delisting an article. I've followed the instructions at
WP:Good article reassessment as far as remove the {{
GAR/link}} template from the article talk page
but am lost thereafter. Can someone please sort it out? The process is nearly as arcane as DYK, sorry. -
Sitush (
talk)
17:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Input is welcome for this GAR. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 15:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
How long does an individual GAR generally stay open? I like to think that my 230+ GAN reviews make me reasonably experienced with the GA criteria, and I've recently opened Talk:Red Tail Squadron/GA1, where significant work is needed. The nominator from back ten years ago is still active, it looks like, but what about other ones, where those involved in the article just aren't around any more and the project notices don't draw in any attention? I feel like these shouldn't just stick around in GAR purgatory, but I've got no experience on how long these should be left open. Hog Farm Bacon 19:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
— BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Just saw the review at Talk:HCR Corporation. This was not done without any effort at all. Should be Dlisted until a proper review. Looks like this has happened a few times.-- Moxy 🍁 03:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
This GAR has brought up concerns that the article may not have enough depth to meet WP:GNG or to satisfy the GA criteria for breadth of coverage. We agreed that it may be helpful to get someone else to take a look at the article and add their thoughts to the GAR. Would anyone be able to help, please? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
To the esteemed GA subject matter experts, I have several questions regarding the delisting of a GA through the AfD process. I’m not weighing in on the notability or deletion of the following example GAs, nor am I attempting to litigate the AfD decision referenced below. I am just using the below articles and AfD process as an example in seeking clarification from the GA community about the processes for delisting and deleting GAs.
Background: Recently, five GAs for Britney Spears songs were nominated for AfD and deleted and redirected as a result: Mmm Papi, Out from Under, Unusual You, Inside Out (Britney Spears song), and (Drop Dead) Beautiful. Prior to this AfD, I was under the impression that GAs went through the GA reassessment process to determine delisting and then went through AfD to determine deletion/redirection. I also noticed on the Out from Under talk page that "Good article reassessment" is listed under the article milestones with the outcome of "Delisted" even though a formal GA reassessment was not completed.
Questions:
Again, I ask these questions for clarification purposes, and not to litigate the referenced AfD decision. I know the answers to these questions are likely located on a policy or instruction page, but I cannot find them. Any guidance or resources you could provide would be incredibly appreciated and valued. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Per the talkpage above, the article received a 1 sentence review. The nominator ( Kyle Peake) is highly experienced and I've no doubt that the article should have passed GA review, but I find it hard to believe that a thorough review was just one comment from the reviewer ( The Ultimate Boss). ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I just created a reassessment for Jacinda Ardern and followed the template here. However, instead of creating links to the article, the template inserts gibberish links to the template about Ardern rather than the article as seen here Talk:Jacinda_Ardern/GA2. The same thing happened when including it at the talk page, it became complete nonsense when using the template given here. I have no idea how to fix it. What is more, if this is what happens to any reassessment of an article with template boxes, then something needs to be fixed. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Would've done this myself, but I'm not familiar with the process. As Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sailor Moon/2 is for an article that is not currently a GA, there's no need for it to be open. Hog Farm Talk 06:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Judging from the talk page discussions about, I'm not the only one with questions about the instructions. I've got four small proposals to make the process a bit clearer. Let me know what you think.
7. During the individual reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. When the discussion has concluded, you may close it. 8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. If there is no activity after seven days, reviewers may close the discussion as well
end of 9 and restore any project assessment values on the article talk page (check history to see what they were). Replace the GA assessment value with the current class of the article.
Femke Nijsse (
talk)
09:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
(whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the commentsfrom 8. Individual GAs are not necessarily consensus driven as they are closed by the person opening them and usually only involve the reassessor and anyone interested in fixing the articles. This is more suitable to community reassessments. AIRcorn (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Femkemilene and Aircorn: I support the above changes as well. One note, regarding "The old project assessments will probably not have any value", I fully agree that part should be removed. It's a very outdated instruction, but I don't think we should require reviewers to re-assess themselves. That's an additional burden, and perhaps an unassessed article might stimulate someone to assess it and make changes at a later point. Given this has been here without comments for months now, I would suggest the changes be made? CMD ( talk) 17:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Average Joe/GA1 was nominated for GAR in December by an apparent clean start account, but that account edited for less than a week. They assessed it as a "quick fail", but did not make any changes to the article status. Seems a good candidate for someone else to take over. CMD ( talk) 17:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The individual reassessment says: "You know the article has not been delisted before"
The community reassessment says: "You disagree with an earlier delist decision"
Shouldn't the latter then not be "You disagree with an earlier delist or relist decision"?
Because when an article has been delisted and relisted and I think it should be delisted again, then I can't use the individual reassessment but also not the community reassessment because I do actually agree to delist it.
PhotographyEdits ( talk) 12:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
There are a few outstanding community GARs from 2020 that I have already !voted in which could use closure, or if unsure of closure, further input. They are:
Best, CMD ( talk) 15:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I just came upon Eckhart Tolle ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and it appears to have been pushed through the GA process without proper review as a highly promotional fan-pov article (if not COI/PAID-driven). I don't recall ever being removing GA status from an article, and don't see a simple way to do so. Maybe I'm just in too much a rush. I don't see a simple solution to fixing the article, as even basic notability appears to be in dispute. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I could not find it in the instructions so I have obviously put the wrong number in Talk:Blast_furnace. Could somebody amend the instructions (or even better automate)? Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I would like to reassess alone
Marcel Lefebvre. The problem of the article are very clear: 80% of the sources are either primary (e.g. semons from Lefebvre), come from the SSPX (the organisation created by Lefebvre) and its media, or from people affiliated with the SSPX (e.g. Davies' Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre).
However, I have never made any reassessment, so I would like to know if making an individual reassessment could be controversial in this case. Thanks in advance.
Veverve (
talk)
13:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)