I've made some grammatical and procedural changes to the templates. I think further changes are necessary. They are being discussed at Talk:GA/R. LaraLove T/ C 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Near the bottom, when it says that only experienced reviewers should archive certain contentious reviews, does that really mean reviewers in general, or experienced archivists? I don't know if I mind either way, but I just wanted to be sure about what its intended to mean. Homestarmy 23:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop jacking with our project pages. While I agree with you that your edit is insignificant, it's also unnecessary. Leave our project pages alone. It is not your place to change things to the way you want them and then demand that we, the people who've actually devoted time to this project before being pissed off by it, justify our reverts of your changes. Lara ♥Love 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit confilict]
I made a good faith, bold change to the guidance from:-
Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix them yourself.
to:-
Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, it will almost always be better to be bold and fix them yourself.
Lara reverted [1] with the frankly, appaling edit summary of "Stop jacking with our project". Heavens! I get an assumption of bad faith, no discussion of the merit or otherwise of the change, a suggestions of WP:OWN for this project (can't remember seeing where I pick up my tie to join), and rank high-handed reversion all in 5 words. Congratulations!
To substance - can someone tell me why it might is so preferable to almost always in terms of improving our encyclopedia? In what cicumstances would it not be better to be be bold and fix easy problems? -- Joopercoopers 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So shall we compromise and say "it will almost always be better to be bold and fix them yourself, but this is not mandatory" -- Joopercoopers 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If you read any article and see any problem that you can fix, you should fix it instead of complaining about it. That is true for any page on any wiki, independent of the GA process. I have therefore fixed the wording on the project page. If everybody cooperates in the spirit of {{ sofixit}} instead of complaining, we can improve the quality of the encyclopedia faster and with less drama. Kusma ( talk) 09:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see reviewers and editors on different sides of the project. Nor do I see editors and admins on different sides. I see participants of the GA project and those not on different sides of an imagined fence in that we understand the project and the innerworkings of it whereas you and Joopers clearly do not. I really don't get how people think it's okay to just interject their opinions into the guidelines of a project they don't work in. Your wording isn't going to change anything. It's pointless, and it's just stirring up drama. So I'm asking that you and Joopers and any other editors he has in mind to come alter the guideline, stop disrupting our project. Lara Love 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did Borderline personality disorder pass September sweeps when it has had uncited statements since July? Can someone deal with this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
These proposals in their current form are well established and already currently in use, they should be afforded fuller status to prevent damaging circumventions when reviewing Good Articles. The guidelines are easy to read and understand. They afford respect to all parties involved. The guidelines here are not ambiguous. The guidelines offer the chance to allow Good Articles to retained or delisted to everyone's satisfaction.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 08:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to follow the instructions in these reassessment guidelines, in order to correctly end my individual GA review (of the article Culture, but they do not cover:
I hope someone can provide some help on these questions. This whole business of going through this review procedure is very time-consuming this first time round... and may deter me from instigating future article reviews. -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 03:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
On the off-chance that anyone is watching this page, what is the process for delisting after a community review agrees that a GA should not be/should not have been listed? Can we remove it ourselves, or do we need to find an uninvolved editor? SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I refer to the general and not the specific: GAR is about article reassessment or article status and not about dispute resolution, as far as I am aware. To me, it seems to follow that a nomination for a GAR should not contain criticism of individuals who participated in any GA review fail or de-listing. Since GAR is not the arena to discuss disagreements or disputes, then any people who may be criticised in the nomination will be off-topic, if they addressed the criticism or implied criticism in the nomination heading the GAR. Surely, it would be sensible to deal with this at the bud and not allow implied criticism in the nomination, and make this part of the guidelines. Snowman ( talk) 21:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
My purposes in today's addition are these:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1) Can the recent changes to the GAR process be summarized as "we are no longer doing individual reassessments, all reassessments from now on are community reassessments"?
1a) If so, we should change {{ GAR}} and delete the "To start an individual reassessment..." bullet.
2) On Feb 23, we will begin mass-delisting 200ish Doug Coldwell GAs, and 200ish pro forma GAR entries will be created. Should we make an exception and list these as individual reassessments, to avoid clogging up the GAR community reassessment logs (e.g. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 69)? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've made some grammatical and procedural changes to the templates. I think further changes are necessary. They are being discussed at Talk:GA/R. LaraLove T/ C 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Near the bottom, when it says that only experienced reviewers should archive certain contentious reviews, does that really mean reviewers in general, or experienced archivists? I don't know if I mind either way, but I just wanted to be sure about what its intended to mean. Homestarmy 23:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop jacking with our project pages. While I agree with you that your edit is insignificant, it's also unnecessary. Leave our project pages alone. It is not your place to change things to the way you want them and then demand that we, the people who've actually devoted time to this project before being pissed off by it, justify our reverts of your changes. Lara ♥Love 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit confilict]
I made a good faith, bold change to the guidance from:-
Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix them yourself.
to:-
Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, it will almost always be better to be bold and fix them yourself.
Lara reverted [1] with the frankly, appaling edit summary of "Stop jacking with our project". Heavens! I get an assumption of bad faith, no discussion of the merit or otherwise of the change, a suggestions of WP:OWN for this project (can't remember seeing where I pick up my tie to join), and rank high-handed reversion all in 5 words. Congratulations!
To substance - can someone tell me why it might is so preferable to almost always in terms of improving our encyclopedia? In what cicumstances would it not be better to be be bold and fix easy problems? -- Joopercoopers 14:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So shall we compromise and say "it will almost always be better to be bold and fix them yourself, but this is not mandatory" -- Joopercoopers 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If you read any article and see any problem that you can fix, you should fix it instead of complaining about it. That is true for any page on any wiki, independent of the GA process. I have therefore fixed the wording on the project page. If everybody cooperates in the spirit of {{ sofixit}} instead of complaining, we can improve the quality of the encyclopedia faster and with less drama. Kusma ( talk) 09:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see reviewers and editors on different sides of the project. Nor do I see editors and admins on different sides. I see participants of the GA project and those not on different sides of an imagined fence in that we understand the project and the innerworkings of it whereas you and Joopers clearly do not. I really don't get how people think it's okay to just interject their opinions into the guidelines of a project they don't work in. Your wording isn't going to change anything. It's pointless, and it's just stirring up drama. So I'm asking that you and Joopers and any other editors he has in mind to come alter the guideline, stop disrupting our project. Lara Love 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did Borderline personality disorder pass September sweeps when it has had uncited statements since July? Can someone deal with this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
These proposals in their current form are well established and already currently in use, they should be afforded fuller status to prevent damaging circumventions when reviewing Good Articles. The guidelines are easy to read and understand. They afford respect to all parties involved. The guidelines here are not ambiguous. The guidelines offer the chance to allow Good Articles to retained or delisted to everyone's satisfaction.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 08:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been trying to follow the instructions in these reassessment guidelines, in order to correctly end my individual GA review (of the article Culture, but they do not cover:
I hope someone can provide some help on these questions. This whole business of going through this review procedure is very time-consuming this first time round... and may deter me from instigating future article reviews. -- AlotToLearn ( talk) 03:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
On the off-chance that anyone is watching this page, what is the process for delisting after a community review agrees that a GA should not be/should not have been listed? Can we remove it ourselves, or do we need to find an uninvolved editor? SlimVirgin talk contribs 16:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I refer to the general and not the specific: GAR is about article reassessment or article status and not about dispute resolution, as far as I am aware. To me, it seems to follow that a nomination for a GAR should not contain criticism of individuals who participated in any GA review fail or de-listing. Since GAR is not the arena to discuss disagreements or disputes, then any people who may be criticised in the nomination will be off-topic, if they addressed the criticism or implied criticism in the nomination heading the GAR. Surely, it would be sensible to deal with this at the bud and not allow implied criticism in the nomination, and make this part of the guidelines. Snowman ( talk) 21:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
My purposes in today's addition are these:
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1) Can the recent changes to the GAR process be summarized as "we are no longer doing individual reassessments, all reassessments from now on are community reassessments"?
1a) If so, we should change {{ GAR}} and delete the "To start an individual reassessment..." bullet.
2) On Feb 23, we will begin mass-delisting 200ish Doug Coldwell GAs, and 200ish pro forma GAR entries will be created. Should we make an exception and list these as individual reassessments, to avoid clogging up the GAR community reassessment logs (e.g. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 69)? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)