![]() | 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. |
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ethanol fuel in Brazil/1 is a community GAR clearly ready to close IMO, but as I'm involved, I've been holding off on closing it. Would it be appropriate for me to close it, or should I wait for someone uninvolved to close? Hog Farm Talk 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
There are a few GARs that have been open a while that need closure. I have commented on them or edited the article so it would be better for someone else to close them. They are:
* Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeopardy!/1
* Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/French fries/1
* Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Josiah Holbrook/1
Cheers Aircorn (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Should we remove the advice that users can appeal a failed GAN at GAR? The top of this page says Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination.
and the "When to use community reassessment" box has a bullet point suggesting you can use GAR if You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)
. I can't recall ever seeing anyone do this, so if policy reflects practice, maybe we should just cut it? Folks that have a problem with their review tend to post at
WT:GAN, which is basically what's recommended at
Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_5:_After_the_review. Alternatively, if we want to keep this option on the books, maybe we should update
the GA instructions to reflect that option? Thoughts from anyone? If no one objects I'll just cut it from the GAR instructions here.
Ajpolino (
talk)
21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled across this GAR during a patrol. It has been closed due the article author taking umbrage at having a GAR cast upon one of their articles. What is the meaning of this? Why was this brought directly to GAR without any prior discussion anywhere (on the talk page perhaps)? If there was prior discussion, why was I as the main contributor and nominator for GA not notified? ... my sense is that this particular editor - during the course of the discussions on the GAR page - (which never got to review) actually, engaged in a form of intimidation of the GAR nominee. Our guidelines do say that any uninvolved editor may put a GA up for review. Any uninvolved editor - preferably an experienced reviewer - may take that GAR and either dismiss it upon review, or proceed with it. I don't cognize that page author objections are a valid form of closure. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 20:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe Thanks for closing one of the GAR I opened. I have always removed the green symbol manually in the past but if a bot will do that please could you update the instructions. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Since there is no one who is willing to improve the article (including me as the main author) over a span of a month back to GA, I would like to have a close and delist. It's just a waste of time. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The reassessment discussion is hard to follow - could whoever closes it write an executive summary in list format for future editors, to say exactly what needs to be done to make the article good. Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we have a second opinion at the reassessment for the Billy Bremner Good article please? It has been flagged up at the football Wikiproject but unfortunately no one else has contributed to the discussion. There doesn't appear to be any way to request for a second opinion? Maybe it can become a community reassessment? Things aren't going so well. Echetus Xe 22:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
GARs are not pages to complain about an article you don't think deserves to be GA.
Do not open GARs just to say "I don't think this should be GA" and then dip.
Kingsif (
talk)
13:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I was just sorting out the archives and came across
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/NATO/1 again. It was another reminder that I have been thinking for a while that we should address the stability issue when it comes to GAR. What do closers and watchers of this page think about adding something along the lines of Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Content disputes should be resolved through the normal means before bringing an article here.
at the end of a new paragraph (
example).
Aircorn
(talk)
03:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Content disputes should be resolved through the normal meanswith normal means being a link to WP:Dispute resolution. RFC's, 3rd opinions and relevant noticeboards are much more useful than us at resolving content disputes. Aircorn (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Closing a GAR discussion is quite a bit of faff, so I'd like to submit a WP:Bot request to assist here. Because our instructions are contradictory, I'd like to make sure that I'm asking the right thing. The bot should:
I think the User:FACBot (maintained by @ Hawkeye7) is already doing something very similar for featured articles. I'm not quite sure how a bot would be triggered in the case of an individual reassessment though. Would this be useful? Femke ( talk) 11:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Article above was just delisted by the opener of GAR - isn't this not suitable? GAR had only been open a week. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
This GAR could use an uninvolved closer. ( t · c) buidhe 00:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Rosemary Edna Sinclair was passed as a GA in 2016. The author confused the article's subject with an unrelated person of the same name, introducing massive factual errors into the article. Unfortunately this was not picked up by the reviewer, whose review was cursory at best. A new editor has just picked up on the error and I have amended the article accordingly. Neither the author or reviewer are active on Wikipedia anymore. I think we can have very little confidence in the factual accuracy of the remainder of the article, what is the process for unilaterally delisting this? ITBF ( talk) 14:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello friends. I have added the ability to close GARs to User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool. [Keep] and [Delist] buttons will appear on GAR subpages (but not the main index/digest page at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment). Please feel free to install. Enjoy. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Over the course of a couple of months, PCN02WPS did individual GARs on eleven of the "women's national football team" GAs, which were originally listed about ten years ago. Three were opened in early May (Guinea-Bissau, Gambia, and Togo), and delisted nine to eleven days later. The remaining eight were opened on June 27 and July 1, and closed on July 9, eight to twelve days later.
They have done about three dozen reviews at GAN to date, and have been competing in this year's WikiCup. As best I can tell, they thought they would get WikiCup credit for GARs, but didn't (regular GAN reviews do count; GARs do not).
The notifications of interested parties were not fully done. While WikiProjects seem to have been notified, none of the previous reviewers or current active editors of the articles were notified, which is unfortunate. (All of the articles had originally been created and nominated by a now-vanished user, so notifying them won't do anything useful, but current editors certainly and original reviewers should be informed.)
On July 17,
Sportsfan77777, without any discussion, simply made the GARs and the delistings disappear, and restored GA status to the eleven articles. Their rationale, taken from their edit summaries, was as follows: Numerous procedural errors: #1: GAR was done solely for WikiCup points. #2: Should use community reassessment, not individual. #3: Did not give others enough time to address concerns. #4: Poor attempt at notification. #5: Mass de-listing many of the same type of article --- makes it impossible to reply to all of them.
I think this mass reversal is more problematic than the GARs themselves, given the listed rationale, and it's important that we have a discussion here about how best to proceed. In the interim, PCN02WPS has opened community reassessments on a number of these articles; one of these caught my attention, which led to me posting on their talk page asking why they hadn't gone with the original GAR, and them pointing me to the mass reversal (see User talk:PCN02WPS#Individual GA reassessments). PCN02WPS addresses the individual points in Sportsfan77777's summary; my thoughts on them are listed below by number, including what is probably best done at this point:
My feeling is that PCN02WPS did the reassessments in good faith, probably inspired by the WikiCup, and had every reason to assume that individual reassessments were appropriate based on WP:GAR. I don't see any argument that their reviews were inadequate in terms of the GA criteria, just that proper notification wasn't done and more time might have been nice.
Under the circumstances, what I would suggest is that all eleven individual GARs be reopened, notifications be posted on the talk pages of all active significant editors to the individual articles, and a set period of time to be decided here (two weeks should be more than enough) be given for work to be done on the articles, though of course if good progress is being made, the time should be extended. If some editors need to work on more than one article, then extra time could be allowed on the ones that can't be given immediate attention. If this is agreed to, the community reassessments created today should be deleted as duplicative. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
My feeling...are absolutely correct. I know now that my notifications were sub-par and I apologize for that. I would have no problem reopening any and all of the women's national team GARs that I've done, and two weeks sounds like a good waiting period. Also happy to do the notifications to individual editors for the reopened GARs. Thanks again to BlueMoonset and also to Chipmunkdavis for their comments above. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 02:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Why the GAR was done is really irrelevant; what matters is whether the articles currently meet the GA criteria
According to WP:GAR, individual reassessments are appropriate if the editor conducting them thinks that they can reasonably assess and make the decision re the GA criteria on their own, have no significant edits to the article, it hasn't been delisted before, and there isn't an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Given this, I don't see why a community reassessment is mandated.
Seven days is standard. Did anyone even start to address the issues?
The notifications were not good: while WikiProjects do seem to have been covered, none of the current active editors or original reviewers were informed on their talk pages.
It takes a few minutes only for any user to ask for more time given the similarity in articles. Did anyone do so? If not, then this argument doesn't hold water.
If PCN02WPS or anyone else still wants the articles reassessed, then I agree with reopening as a community reassessment. But it's ridiculous to expect one editor to address so many articles in just two weeks. Like I said above, many of the community GARs stay open for a month or more. Why do you want to close all of these so quickly? They look fairly straightforward to address. I can get to one of these in a few weeks. I can't get to 11 of them!! Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 09:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
the editors with the most women's football GAsis a bit absurd and doesn't fall under the realm of notifying
major contributing editors, especially if they've never added anything major to the article in question. (As a side note - that's one of the uses of keeping up with a WikiProject talk page: you can get notified of things which you are interested in but may not directly be involved in.) PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 13:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Sportsfan77777, what I'm getting from your comments above is that you like the community reassessment better and you think it makes things more obvious to a wider community. However, the individual reassessment has been around for a very long time and has been used by many editors successfully, with reviews sometimes open not much more than seven days. Community GARs tend to stay open for a month or more because it takes that long to get editors to comment on them so that a consensus forms, not because taking so long is considered ideal, whereas with an individual reassessment, the person doing the assessment is frequently doing all of the review work (essentially like a GA review, since they should be covering all the GA criteria). The hope of a reassessment is that someone will show up to work on the aspects where the article falls short of the criteria, at which point the reassessor should help direct the editor to the improvements needed, much like a GA reviewer would do with a nominator. That's why I suggested the individual reviews be reopened: the issues have been identified, but the individual editors who have lately worked on the articles were not notified. My experience of GARs is that you're more likely to get an editor from individual notifications than from WikiProject ones, though those do sometimes bear fruit. I do agree with Femke and PCN02WPS that there is no requirement nor reasonable expectation that the reviewer should have to notify other editors with women's football GAs. However, the set of who you should be notifying is the same with individual and community reassessments: prior nominator, prior reviewer(s), major contributors. Anyone arguing that the notification requirement is less onerous for community reassessments is misreading the process explanation at WP:GAR. What you didn't address is whether you feel the contents of the reviews was problematic, so I'm assuming that wasn't an issue.
To answer one question: when you discovered the delistings, you could have either posted your concerns to one of the closed reassessment pages and/or to PCN02WPS's talk page directly, noting the notification problems and pointing out that people like yourself might well be found to address the issues raised, and recommending/requesting that all of the closed reassessments be reopened.
As I said in my original post, I believe the eradication of these individual reviews is itself out of process. As to how we should proceed, I believe that they should be reinstated and reopened, and suggest they stay open for two weeks after the various editors active on them have been notified that the reassessment is under way and editors are needed to work on the issues found in the reassessment. If Sportsfan77777 is willing to work on the ones that don't get attention from other editors active on those articles—I'd imagine that PCN02WPS would be willing to check with Sportsfan77777 to be sure they do plan to do the necessary work—then it may be that the final result is all of them are ultimately reclosed as "keep". BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The lack of quality of your reviews is the concernand
The procedural issues are the reasons I reverted, but it would help if you did a better job with the reviews. I'm not so sure how that will play into all of this. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 01:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I have looked at all eleven articles, checked their article histories, and have almost finished making lists of editors active on them in the past couple of years: there are some editors who have worked on all or most of the ones I've checked, plus a few who seem to have specialized in only one or two teams. I plan to post to each editor's talk page to let them know about the reopened reassessments, in the hopes that one or more of them will wish to try to improve the article so it meets the GA criteria.
It was immediately clear to me that Sierra Leone women's national football team was appropriately delisted: the article has had a "factual accuracy" tag on it since March 2020, and four separate "section needs expansion" tags from November 2020. There are also unlabeled empty tables. So I have preemptively restored the delisting on the talk page, and removed the good article icon from the article.
Community reassessments had been opened by PCN02WPS on the Madagascar, Cambodia, and Mauritius women's national football team articles after the reversal by Sportsfan77777. Since both Madagascar and Cambodia have since received keep and delist comments respectively (the former after Sportsfan77777 edited Madagascar to address issues raised in PCN02WPS's individual review), I think those community reassessments should continue. I'd like PCN02WPS to request a speedy deletion for the Mauritius community page, so the individual review can continue with the rest of them. I'll be deleting the link to the community review and restoring the one to the individual review on the article's talk page.
I'll be reopening the remaining eight individual reassessments—Mauritius (just mentioned), Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Togo, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Niger—for two weeks, as proposed above: this would make them available for improvement for at least that long, and subject to reclosure starting August 10. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have just reinstated the delistings of Togo, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Niger; there didn't seem any reason to wait. Seychelles, Rwanda, and Mauritius have also been restored to their delisted state (with the latter's community reassessment removed as duplicative, especially as it hadn't received any comments). This leaves Madagascar, where the community reassessment appears to be headed in a favorable direction, Cambodia, where the one response is affirming the delist conclusion of the individual reassessment, and Sudan. I had reopened Sudan as initially noted above, and Bilorv did significant work in addressing a large number of issues raised by PCN02WPS before I returned to it, though they have noted structural issues with the article as it currently stands. Under the circumstances, I think Sudan should remain open for the two weeks posited above, and I'll be notifying the active authors of Sudan to see whether any are interested in addressing the noted issues. I appreciate everyone's patience, and hope we're in good shape moving forward. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I've been spotchecking and running Earwig on my recent promotions, having realized that I should have been doing that all along, and I've found a couple of problems and have left notes on article talk pages. I've just run into one that seems worse and would like to know what the best way to approach it is. The article is Hajji Ebrahim Shirazi; the nominator's prose is not good and I nearly failed it on that basis but ended up doing a fairly long review to get it over the line. Just now I ran Earwig and found multiple instances of short copied strings of text. I've left a note on the article's talk page about them. I still need to do the manual spotchecks. My question is what's the usual way to approach this? If the nominator, who I'm going to assume is acting in good faith, cleans up everything I can access, which is not much because a lot of the sources are Persian, do I treat that as sufficient? Or is the level of problems found there the sort of thing that would trigger a GAR? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
A user has placed a GA reassessment template for Winston Churchill. The editor appears quite new to Wikipedia and perhaps this is not the right method? While I think any article of this size will always have something, I think it is still GA. Would welcome further input at the reassessment page. Thank you. Coldupnorth ( talk) 23:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
For people interested, there is a discussion at WT:GAN#We need a MUCH quicker way of delisting GAs about speeding up the GAR process. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Per Proposal 14 at GAPD23, which passed with overwhelming support, the individual and community reassessment processes will be merged. Other possible (and ongoing!) proposals relevant to GAR include: Proposal 12, which proposes adding GAR listings to the GAN page; Proposal 13, which suggests the implementation of a GAR co-ordinator position; and Proposal 17, which advocates redirecting WT:GA and this page to WT:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
PMC has drafted new instruction for the GAR process now that the two processes are to be merged. Comments are invited at User talk:Premeditated Chaos/GAR proposal. An alternative/simpler set of instructions can be found at: User:AirshipJungleman29/sandbox4, but we'll be working from PMC's proposal to make the process a bit easier. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 09:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The new instruction are launched. The User:SD0001/GAR-helper script has been updated, so people using that will not notice the existence of individual reassessments in the {{ GAR}} family of templates. I've clarified my request at WP:RT to change the {{ GAR}} family of templates. Let's evaluate in a month or so how this is going, with people closing more of their own reassessments. There are two things we should look out for:
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 18:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone really go through these? It can be useful in identifying articles that need reassessment, but they usually sit there longer than open reassessments. It is adding an extra step to a relatively complicated process. Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll modify the template to say it's deprecated in a few days. Marking as historical will then happen after emptying the category. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 12:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
If I remember it correctly, there was a discussion to retire GAR request process. That category is empty now, maybe it's time to remove it and delete (archive?) GAR request template? Artem.G ( talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The mass messages to article talk pages and GA reviewer talk pages have been sent for WP:DCGAR (the en masse Doug Coldwell GA reassessment).
Aspiring/potential/future GAR Coords will need to:
Anything else ?? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to echo something
Hog Farm said above: One other thing I can think of to watch out for is going to be reminding people not to have too many similar topic GARs open at once. I've noticed several times lately that there's a large number of similar articles, such as multiple periodic table elements or cities in a region, up at once, and while GAN/GAR is a lighter weight process, we do want to make sure that there's care to not overwhelm a specific editor or project to the extent that there's no real way to attempt saves.
I'm aware GAR has not been systematically manned at least as long as I've been around, so I'm sure once folks start looking we'll see an enormous backlog of GAs that need substantial work. But for most articles there's only a small group of niche-interested editors who might possibly do that work. And asking of them more than they can handle is just going to fatigue them, and reduce the chances that these GAs can be "saved". I think this is well-done at FAR, and requires some hard-to-codify finesse to gauge a given topic's editor base (if any) and their current bandwidth. But here's gentle encouragement to the new coordinators and the new folks interested in this process to keep it in mind.
I was brought here by the biochemistry articles, we've got GARs for lipid, antibody, amino acid, oligonucleotide synthesis, and X-ray crystallography all launched this week. I completely understand this is done with good intentions, but if you'd like the very small group of biochemistry-interested editors to clean these articles up, you may need to take pity on us and slow down a bit. Pardon the long message (though I partially blame Hog Farm for having a good quote that couldn't be easily trimmed). Ajpolino ( talk) 05:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:GA § Should everything be cited?.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
19:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposal 13 from the Good Article proposal drive, which would establish GAR coordinators, was closed as successful. So now, we need to figure out implementation. What are people's thoughts? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Femke would you be willing to put yourself forward as a GAR Coord? You seem to be doing it anyway. Trainsandotherthings, how about you? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Recap so far of those stepping forward: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I have opened the discussion here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:GAN § Idea: Good article save award, akin to WP:FASA.
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
10:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
A poll to select coordinators for the good article reassessment process is now open; please contribute to the discussion and !vote if interested. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The current GAR closing instructions are missing some steps.
As an aside, I believe we had consensus to consolidate some talkpages so I am posting here instead of at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/guidelines (which should redirect here?). CMD ( talk) 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
See Template:GARMessage. It now contains a title. Should make notifying ever so slightly faster :). If you use "New section", you can just subst in the description and leave the title empty. Of course feel free to revert if this does not make life easier. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
{{subst:GARMessage|Apple}}
links to [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Apple/3]]
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
23:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)@ Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings:, for the past few weeks I've been closing GARs on this process:
These are obviously not applicable to WP:DCGAR articles, and nothing has lasted long enough for step 3 to be applicable, but I think it's worked well enough over the past couple of months. Hope everything goes well! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings: have you all set up a template so you can be pinged? See {{ @FAC}}, {{ @FAR}} and {{ @TFA}} for samples. You might also add that to the instructions, similar to WP:FAC, WP:FAR and WP:TFA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Due to the recent change to have all GAR pages as subpages of the project page rather than talkpages, GARs no longer move with talkpages. Happily this should not affect the article history template, but will matter for ambiguous titles. (For example, I just moved Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/My Hands/1 to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/My Hands (Leona Lewis song)/1, as My Hands is now a different song.) Presumably this would have been an issue for previous community GARs as well, so something to keep an eye out for when looking at previous GARs. CMD ( talk) 05:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The GA review for
Ontario Highway 11, by a user since blocked for sockpuppetry, includes such gems as But thanks to these wonderful images, I now understand that Ontario Highway 11 is a paved road that vehicles use to travel.
The entire thing
reads like ChatGPT. I'd say this should be grounds for rapid delisting, since no actual review was done. But I don't know community procedures in that regard.
XOR'easter (
talk)
02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@ GAR coordinators: , would the page work better with the oldest at the bottom, instead of at the top? This is how things work at FAC and FAR, and it would somewhat alleviate the problem of the Joseph Dart DCGAR overwhelming the entire page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
For archival purposes, I've moved the GAR rewrite draft and the associated discussion from my userspace to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/GAR proposal. Noting it here so it gets archived in this talk archive and will be searchable. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This article was promoted to GA back in 2008 but has a number of cn tags including the opening sentence. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! Apologies, I don't know how to use scripts yet, but I wanted to raise Fortinet for GAR. Comparison between where it is today (puffery and NEWSDEPTH violations everywhere) and where it was ( [1]) makes it stark, but specifically:
Please let me know what you think. Couruu ( talk) 09:09, 12 July 2023 (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. |
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ethanol fuel in Brazil/1 is a community GAR clearly ready to close IMO, but as I'm involved, I've been holding off on closing it. Would it be appropriate for me to close it, or should I wait for someone uninvolved to close? Hog Farm Talk 18:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
There are a few GARs that have been open a while that need closure. I have commented on them or edited the article so it would be better for someone else to close them. They are:
* Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeopardy!/1
* Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/French fries/1
* Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Josiah Holbrook/1
Cheers Aircorn (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Should we remove the advice that users can appeal a failed GAN at GAR? The top of this page says Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination.
and the "When to use community reassessment" box has a bullet point suggesting you can use GAR if You disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it)
. I can't recall ever seeing anyone do this, so if policy reflects practice, maybe we should just cut it? Folks that have a problem with their review tend to post at
WT:GAN, which is basically what's recommended at
Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Step_5:_After_the_review. Alternatively, if we want to keep this option on the books, maybe we should update
the GA instructions to reflect that option? Thoughts from anyone? If no one objects I'll just cut it from the GAR instructions here.
Ajpolino (
talk)
21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled across this GAR during a patrol. It has been closed due the article author taking umbrage at having a GAR cast upon one of their articles. What is the meaning of this? Why was this brought directly to GAR without any prior discussion anywhere (on the talk page perhaps)? If there was prior discussion, why was I as the main contributor and nominator for GA not notified? ... my sense is that this particular editor - during the course of the discussions on the GAR page - (which never got to review) actually, engaged in a form of intimidation of the GAR nominee. Our guidelines do say that any uninvolved editor may put a GA up for review. Any uninvolved editor - preferably an experienced reviewer - may take that GAR and either dismiss it upon review, or proceed with it. I don't cognize that page author objections are a valid form of closure. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 20:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe Thanks for closing one of the GAR I opened. I have always removed the green symbol manually in the past but if a bot will do that please could you update the instructions. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Since there is no one who is willing to improve the article (including me as the main author) over a span of a month back to GA, I would like to have a close and delist. It's just a waste of time. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 17:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The reassessment discussion is hard to follow - could whoever closes it write an executive summary in list format for future editors, to say exactly what needs to be done to make the article good. Chidgk1 ( talk) 10:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we have a second opinion at the reassessment for the Billy Bremner Good article please? It has been flagged up at the football Wikiproject but unfortunately no one else has contributed to the discussion. There doesn't appear to be any way to request for a second opinion? Maybe it can become a community reassessment? Things aren't going so well. Echetus Xe 22:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
GARs are not pages to complain about an article you don't think deserves to be GA.
Do not open GARs just to say "I don't think this should be GA" and then dip.
Kingsif (
talk)
13:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I was just sorting out the archives and came across
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/NATO/1 again. It was another reminder that I have been thinking for a while that we should address the stability issue when it comes to GAR. What do closers and watchers of this page think about adding something along the lines of Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. Content disputes should be resolved through the normal means before bringing an article here.
at the end of a new paragraph (
example).
Aircorn
(talk)
03:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Content disputes should be resolved through the normal meanswith normal means being a link to WP:Dispute resolution. RFC's, 3rd opinions and relevant noticeboards are much more useful than us at resolving content disputes. Aircorn (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Closing a GAR discussion is quite a bit of faff, so I'd like to submit a WP:Bot request to assist here. Because our instructions are contradictory, I'd like to make sure that I'm asking the right thing. The bot should:
I think the User:FACBot (maintained by @ Hawkeye7) is already doing something very similar for featured articles. I'm not quite sure how a bot would be triggered in the case of an individual reassessment though. Would this be useful? Femke ( talk) 11:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Article above was just delisted by the opener of GAR - isn't this not suitable? GAR had only been open a week. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
This GAR could use an uninvolved closer. ( t · c) buidhe 00:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Rosemary Edna Sinclair was passed as a GA in 2016. The author confused the article's subject with an unrelated person of the same name, introducing massive factual errors into the article. Unfortunately this was not picked up by the reviewer, whose review was cursory at best. A new editor has just picked up on the error and I have amended the article accordingly. Neither the author or reviewer are active on Wikipedia anymore. I think we can have very little confidence in the factual accuracy of the remainder of the article, what is the process for unilaterally delisting this? ITBF ( talk) 14:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello friends. I have added the ability to close GARs to User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool. [Keep] and [Delist] buttons will appear on GAR subpages (but not the main index/digest page at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment). Please feel free to install. Enjoy. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Over the course of a couple of months, PCN02WPS did individual GARs on eleven of the "women's national football team" GAs, which were originally listed about ten years ago. Three were opened in early May (Guinea-Bissau, Gambia, and Togo), and delisted nine to eleven days later. The remaining eight were opened on June 27 and July 1, and closed on July 9, eight to twelve days later.
They have done about three dozen reviews at GAN to date, and have been competing in this year's WikiCup. As best I can tell, they thought they would get WikiCup credit for GARs, but didn't (regular GAN reviews do count; GARs do not).
The notifications of interested parties were not fully done. While WikiProjects seem to have been notified, none of the previous reviewers or current active editors of the articles were notified, which is unfortunate. (All of the articles had originally been created and nominated by a now-vanished user, so notifying them won't do anything useful, but current editors certainly and original reviewers should be informed.)
On July 17,
Sportsfan77777, without any discussion, simply made the GARs and the delistings disappear, and restored GA status to the eleven articles. Their rationale, taken from their edit summaries, was as follows: Numerous procedural errors: #1: GAR was done solely for WikiCup points. #2: Should use community reassessment, not individual. #3: Did not give others enough time to address concerns. #4: Poor attempt at notification. #5: Mass de-listing many of the same type of article --- makes it impossible to reply to all of them.
I think this mass reversal is more problematic than the GARs themselves, given the listed rationale, and it's important that we have a discussion here about how best to proceed. In the interim, PCN02WPS has opened community reassessments on a number of these articles; one of these caught my attention, which led to me posting on their talk page asking why they hadn't gone with the original GAR, and them pointing me to the mass reversal (see User talk:PCN02WPS#Individual GA reassessments). PCN02WPS addresses the individual points in Sportsfan77777's summary; my thoughts on them are listed below by number, including what is probably best done at this point:
My feeling is that PCN02WPS did the reassessments in good faith, probably inspired by the WikiCup, and had every reason to assume that individual reassessments were appropriate based on WP:GAR. I don't see any argument that their reviews were inadequate in terms of the GA criteria, just that proper notification wasn't done and more time might have been nice.
Under the circumstances, what I would suggest is that all eleven individual GARs be reopened, notifications be posted on the talk pages of all active significant editors to the individual articles, and a set period of time to be decided here (two weeks should be more than enough) be given for work to be done on the articles, though of course if good progress is being made, the time should be extended. If some editors need to work on more than one article, then extra time could be allowed on the ones that can't be given immediate attention. If this is agreed to, the community reassessments created today should be deleted as duplicative. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
My feeling...are absolutely correct. I know now that my notifications were sub-par and I apologize for that. I would have no problem reopening any and all of the women's national team GARs that I've done, and two weeks sounds like a good waiting period. Also happy to do the notifications to individual editors for the reopened GARs. Thanks again to BlueMoonset and also to Chipmunkdavis for their comments above. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 02:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Why the GAR was done is really irrelevant; what matters is whether the articles currently meet the GA criteria
According to WP:GAR, individual reassessments are appropriate if the editor conducting them thinks that they can reasonably assess and make the decision re the GA criteria on their own, have no significant edits to the article, it hasn't been delisted before, and there isn't an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Given this, I don't see why a community reassessment is mandated.
Seven days is standard. Did anyone even start to address the issues?
The notifications were not good: while WikiProjects do seem to have been covered, none of the current active editors or original reviewers were informed on their talk pages.
It takes a few minutes only for any user to ask for more time given the similarity in articles. Did anyone do so? If not, then this argument doesn't hold water.
If PCN02WPS or anyone else still wants the articles reassessed, then I agree with reopening as a community reassessment. But it's ridiculous to expect one editor to address so many articles in just two weeks. Like I said above, many of the community GARs stay open for a month or more. Why do you want to close all of these so quickly? They look fairly straightforward to address. I can get to one of these in a few weeks. I can't get to 11 of them!! Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 09:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
the editors with the most women's football GAsis a bit absurd and doesn't fall under the realm of notifying
major contributing editors, especially if they've never added anything major to the article in question. (As a side note - that's one of the uses of keeping up with a WikiProject talk page: you can get notified of things which you are interested in but may not directly be involved in.) PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 13:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Sportsfan77777, what I'm getting from your comments above is that you like the community reassessment better and you think it makes things more obvious to a wider community. However, the individual reassessment has been around for a very long time and has been used by many editors successfully, with reviews sometimes open not much more than seven days. Community GARs tend to stay open for a month or more because it takes that long to get editors to comment on them so that a consensus forms, not because taking so long is considered ideal, whereas with an individual reassessment, the person doing the assessment is frequently doing all of the review work (essentially like a GA review, since they should be covering all the GA criteria). The hope of a reassessment is that someone will show up to work on the aspects where the article falls short of the criteria, at which point the reassessor should help direct the editor to the improvements needed, much like a GA reviewer would do with a nominator. That's why I suggested the individual reviews be reopened: the issues have been identified, but the individual editors who have lately worked on the articles were not notified. My experience of GARs is that you're more likely to get an editor from individual notifications than from WikiProject ones, though those do sometimes bear fruit. I do agree with Femke and PCN02WPS that there is no requirement nor reasonable expectation that the reviewer should have to notify other editors with women's football GAs. However, the set of who you should be notifying is the same with individual and community reassessments: prior nominator, prior reviewer(s), major contributors. Anyone arguing that the notification requirement is less onerous for community reassessments is misreading the process explanation at WP:GAR. What you didn't address is whether you feel the contents of the reviews was problematic, so I'm assuming that wasn't an issue.
To answer one question: when you discovered the delistings, you could have either posted your concerns to one of the closed reassessment pages and/or to PCN02WPS's talk page directly, noting the notification problems and pointing out that people like yourself might well be found to address the issues raised, and recommending/requesting that all of the closed reassessments be reopened.
As I said in my original post, I believe the eradication of these individual reviews is itself out of process. As to how we should proceed, I believe that they should be reinstated and reopened, and suggest they stay open for two weeks after the various editors active on them have been notified that the reassessment is under way and editors are needed to work on the issues found in the reassessment. If Sportsfan77777 is willing to work on the ones that don't get attention from other editors active on those articles—I'd imagine that PCN02WPS would be willing to check with Sportsfan77777 to be sure they do plan to do the necessary work—then it may be that the final result is all of them are ultimately reclosed as "keep". BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The lack of quality of your reviews is the concernand
The procedural issues are the reasons I reverted, but it would help if you did a better job with the reviews. I'm not so sure how that will play into all of this. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 01:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I have looked at all eleven articles, checked their article histories, and have almost finished making lists of editors active on them in the past couple of years: there are some editors who have worked on all or most of the ones I've checked, plus a few who seem to have specialized in only one or two teams. I plan to post to each editor's talk page to let them know about the reopened reassessments, in the hopes that one or more of them will wish to try to improve the article so it meets the GA criteria.
It was immediately clear to me that Sierra Leone women's national football team was appropriately delisted: the article has had a "factual accuracy" tag on it since March 2020, and four separate "section needs expansion" tags from November 2020. There are also unlabeled empty tables. So I have preemptively restored the delisting on the talk page, and removed the good article icon from the article.
Community reassessments had been opened by PCN02WPS on the Madagascar, Cambodia, and Mauritius women's national football team articles after the reversal by Sportsfan77777. Since both Madagascar and Cambodia have since received keep and delist comments respectively (the former after Sportsfan77777 edited Madagascar to address issues raised in PCN02WPS's individual review), I think those community reassessments should continue. I'd like PCN02WPS to request a speedy deletion for the Mauritius community page, so the individual review can continue with the rest of them. I'll be deleting the link to the community review and restoring the one to the individual review on the article's talk page.
I'll be reopening the remaining eight individual reassessments—Mauritius (just mentioned), Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Togo, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Niger—for two weeks, as proposed above: this would make them available for improvement for at least that long, and subject to reclosure starting August 10. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I have just reinstated the delistings of Togo, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Niger; there didn't seem any reason to wait. Seychelles, Rwanda, and Mauritius have also been restored to their delisted state (with the latter's community reassessment removed as duplicative, especially as it hadn't received any comments). This leaves Madagascar, where the community reassessment appears to be headed in a favorable direction, Cambodia, where the one response is affirming the delist conclusion of the individual reassessment, and Sudan. I had reopened Sudan as initially noted above, and Bilorv did significant work in addressing a large number of issues raised by PCN02WPS before I returned to it, though they have noted structural issues with the article as it currently stands. Under the circumstances, I think Sudan should remain open for the two weeks posited above, and I'll be notifying the active authors of Sudan to see whether any are interested in addressing the noted issues. I appreciate everyone's patience, and hope we're in good shape moving forward. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I've been spotchecking and running Earwig on my recent promotions, having realized that I should have been doing that all along, and I've found a couple of problems and have left notes on article talk pages. I've just run into one that seems worse and would like to know what the best way to approach it is. The article is Hajji Ebrahim Shirazi; the nominator's prose is not good and I nearly failed it on that basis but ended up doing a fairly long review to get it over the line. Just now I ran Earwig and found multiple instances of short copied strings of text. I've left a note on the article's talk page about them. I still need to do the manual spotchecks. My question is what's the usual way to approach this? If the nominator, who I'm going to assume is acting in good faith, cleans up everything I can access, which is not much because a lot of the sources are Persian, do I treat that as sufficient? Or is the level of problems found there the sort of thing that would trigger a GAR? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
A user has placed a GA reassessment template for Winston Churchill. The editor appears quite new to Wikipedia and perhaps this is not the right method? While I think any article of this size will always have something, I think it is still GA. Would welcome further input at the reassessment page. Thank you. Coldupnorth ( talk) 23:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
For people interested, there is a discussion at WT:GAN#We need a MUCH quicker way of delisting GAs about speeding up the GAR process. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 09:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Per Proposal 14 at GAPD23, which passed with overwhelming support, the individual and community reassessment processes will be merged. Other possible (and ongoing!) proposals relevant to GAR include: Proposal 12, which proposes adding GAR listings to the GAN page; Proposal 13, which suggests the implementation of a GAR co-ordinator position; and Proposal 17, which advocates redirecting WT:GA and this page to WT:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
PMC has drafted new instruction for the GAR process now that the two processes are to be merged. Comments are invited at User talk:Premeditated Chaos/GAR proposal. An alternative/simpler set of instructions can be found at: User:AirshipJungleman29/sandbox4, but we'll be working from PMC's proposal to make the process a bit easier. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 09:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The new instruction are launched. The User:SD0001/GAR-helper script has been updated, so people using that will not notice the existence of individual reassessments in the {{ GAR}} family of templates. I've clarified my request at WP:RT to change the {{ GAR}} family of templates. Let's evaluate in a month or so how this is going, with people closing more of their own reassessments. There are two things we should look out for:
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 18:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone really go through these? It can be useful in identifying articles that need reassessment, but they usually sit there longer than open reassessments. It is adding an extra step to a relatively complicated process. Aircorn (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll modify the template to say it's deprecated in a few days. Marking as historical will then happen after emptying the category. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 12:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
If I remember it correctly, there was a discussion to retire GAR request process. That category is empty now, maybe it's time to remove it and delete (archive?) GAR request template? Artem.G ( talk) 14:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The mass messages to article talk pages and GA reviewer talk pages have been sent for WP:DCGAR (the en masse Doug Coldwell GA reassessment).
Aspiring/potential/future GAR Coords will need to:
Anything else ?? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to echo something
Hog Farm said above: One other thing I can think of to watch out for is going to be reminding people not to have too many similar topic GARs open at once. I've noticed several times lately that there's a large number of similar articles, such as multiple periodic table elements or cities in a region, up at once, and while GAN/GAR is a lighter weight process, we do want to make sure that there's care to not overwhelm a specific editor or project to the extent that there's no real way to attempt saves.
I'm aware GAR has not been systematically manned at least as long as I've been around, so I'm sure once folks start looking we'll see an enormous backlog of GAs that need substantial work. But for most articles there's only a small group of niche-interested editors who might possibly do that work. And asking of them more than they can handle is just going to fatigue them, and reduce the chances that these GAs can be "saved". I think this is well-done at FAR, and requires some hard-to-codify finesse to gauge a given topic's editor base (if any) and their current bandwidth. But here's gentle encouragement to the new coordinators and the new folks interested in this process to keep it in mind.
I was brought here by the biochemistry articles, we've got GARs for lipid, antibody, amino acid, oligonucleotide synthesis, and X-ray crystallography all launched this week. I completely understand this is done with good intentions, but if you'd like the very small group of biochemistry-interested editors to clean these articles up, you may need to take pity on us and slow down a bit. Pardon the long message (though I partially blame Hog Farm for having a good quote that couldn't be easily trimmed). Ajpolino ( talk) 05:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:GA § Should everything be cited?.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
19:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Proposal 13 from the Good Article proposal drive, which would establish GAR coordinators, was closed as successful. So now, we need to figure out implementation. What are people's thoughts? Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 14:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Femke would you be willing to put yourself forward as a GAR Coord? You seem to be doing it anyway. Trainsandotherthings, how about you? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Recap so far of those stepping forward: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I have opened the discussion here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:GAN § Idea: Good article save award, akin to WP:FASA.
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
10:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
A poll to select coordinators for the good article reassessment process is now open; please contribute to the discussion and !vote if interested. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 18:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The current GAR closing instructions are missing some steps.
As an aside, I believe we had consensus to consolidate some talkpages so I am posting here instead of at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/guidelines (which should redirect here?). CMD ( talk) 07:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
See Template:GARMessage. It now contains a title. Should make notifying ever so slightly faster :). If you use "New section", you can just subst in the description and leave the title empty. Of course feel free to revert if this does not make life easier. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 21:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
{{subst:GARMessage|Apple}}
links to [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Apple/3]]
Olivaw-Daneel (
talk)
23:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)@ Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings:, for the past few weeks I've been closing GARs on this process:
These are obviously not applicable to WP:DCGAR articles, and nothing has lasted long enough for step 3 to be applicable, but I think it's worked well enough over the past couple of months. Hope everything goes well! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski, Iazyges, Chipmunkdavis, and Trainsandotherthings: have you all set up a template so you can be pinged? See {{ @FAC}}, {{ @FAR}} and {{ @TFA}} for samples. You might also add that to the instructions, similar to WP:FAC, WP:FAR and WP:TFA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Due to the recent change to have all GAR pages as subpages of the project page rather than talkpages, GARs no longer move with talkpages. Happily this should not affect the article history template, but will matter for ambiguous titles. (For example, I just moved Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/My Hands/1 to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/My Hands (Leona Lewis song)/1, as My Hands is now a different song.) Presumably this would have been an issue for previous community GARs as well, so something to keep an eye out for when looking at previous GARs. CMD ( talk) 05:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The GA review for
Ontario Highway 11, by a user since blocked for sockpuppetry, includes such gems as But thanks to these wonderful images, I now understand that Ontario Highway 11 is a paved road that vehicles use to travel.
The entire thing
reads like ChatGPT. I'd say this should be grounds for rapid delisting, since no actual review was done. But I don't know community procedures in that regard.
XOR'easter (
talk)
02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@ GAR coordinators: , would the page work better with the oldest at the bottom, instead of at the top? This is how things work at FAC and FAR, and it would somewhat alleviate the problem of the Joseph Dart DCGAR overwhelming the entire page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 02:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
For archival purposes, I've moved the GAR rewrite draft and the associated discussion from my userspace to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/GAR proposal. Noting it here so it gets archived in this talk archive and will be searchable. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This article was promoted to GA back in 2008 but has a number of cn tags including the opening sentence. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there! Apologies, I don't know how to use scripts yet, but I wanted to raise Fortinet for GAR. Comparison between where it is today (puffery and NEWSDEPTH violations everywhere) and where it was ( [1]) makes it stark, but specifically:
Please let me know what you think. Couruu ( talk) 09:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)