Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive5

Regarding odd nomination of Saab Gripen

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)

Looking at Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen, its not been opened as a community reassessment, its been opened as a personal reassessment by User:Peter Isotalo, however it is not clear if that is the intention of the reviewer since he states at Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen#Neutrality regarding bribery, crashes, etc. "I've asked for a GAR and I'm putting up an POV-template until this is fixed properly.". The reviewer has also added two {{neutrality}} flags to the article. The review page (Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen/GA2) makes no mention of the GA criteria and as yet no attempt has been made to assess the article against the criteria (WP:WIAGA). Its just a personal statement of shortcommings. If it continues as a personal review, the reviewer User:Peter Isotalo has the final decision, and that could result in a "failure" (i.e delisting") if that is what the reviewer decides. If that were to happen, I say "if" because the review has not been completed, then the article could be resubmitted to GAR (presummably on the basis that it was not reviewed against the relevant criteria - WP:WIAGA) or resubmitted to GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the review has been left completely without comments. The discussion at the article talkpage has (after quite a lot of grumbling and high-pitched accusations) turned somewhat towards actually discussing the practical aspects of my concerns, but there's still a surprising amount of complaints about formal procedure. Like whether the issue was brought up before (it has) or whether the process should be slower or not.

Strangely enough, I'm the only one actually doing anything about my own complaint, so I don't know if the GAR has any relevance any more. All of the discussion has for some reason been limited to the talkpage.

Peter ^Isotalo 05:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, there are two types of reassessment: community reassessment and individual reassessment (see Talk:Saab JAS 39 Gripen and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment). You have selected individual reassessment, with you as the reviewer, so you can't really complain if there are not comments other than your own on the review page. If you'd selected community reassessment the article would have appeared at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, there are six articles there awaiting comment, but this article is not here for the reasons already given. Its also clear that there could be a potential conflict of interest. So far you have not reviewed the article against the good article criteria, you've merely stated "The article is pretty much devoid of any information about any of the political aspects of the project focuses almost entirely on technical aspects. I don't see that the article fulfills the criteria regarding either neutrality or coverage at the moment." and you've provided some background information. You are actively editing the article, but as a reviewer you can fix problems yourself if you choose to do so. You might decide a some point to "delist" the article, but such action could lead to the article being sent back to GAR and your decision challenged on the basis that the reviewer (you) failed to review the article in accordance with the criteria for Good Articles. It would be perhaps better if this was changed to a community reassessment, or you review it formally in accordance with the review procedures. Pyrotec (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe there would be room for discussion as a response to an individual reassessment. I filed it because I though it important to fix the problem ASAP given that the article was a GA. From my perspective, similar issues had been pointed out twice before, which is why I thought that discussion whether a problem existed or not was irrelevant, only how to actually fix it.

Now that something's being done about fixing the problem, I don't believe the GAR is really needed anymore.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, those prior discussions were over five years old - since then the article has dramatically changed, it's three times the size, thus very little of the content of the conversation back then exists or even comprises a sizeable minority of the article. Some of the major contributors to the article overall weren't even around back then. A recent conversation, that wasn't five years old, could have got the same response without involving the GAR process; and the GAR conventions specifically state four things that you should have undertaken before going to GAR - One of them being the notification of these concerns to major contributors of the article, which you didn't bother to do (If you had taken the time to notice, I happen to be one of the five highest contributors to the article; and I, nor any of the other frequent editors, seem to have had any notification at all). It's quite bizarre that an experienced editor didn't bother to heed the checklist. I know that you're fond of branding other people's opinions to be irrelevant to you, but I would ask that you keep in mind that they may not be irrelevant to them; following web eliquite and exhibiting courteous behavior might result in less butting of heads as happen with multiple editors on the Gripen talkpage who, in my opinion, were a little justified to be surprised. Kyteto (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It is usually to notify the last reviewer and major editors before a GAR is opened, and it seems that you did not follow that convention. I will add most of my comments to the GAR. However, since you opened the GAR it will need to be "closed" at some point and that is your responsibility. Looking at the article there are several editors working on it, you could put the review "on Hold", but you don't need to (as reviewer its your decision). However, at some point you need to make a final decision and close the review and there are only two final choices: "pass" / listed or "fail". As already stated, since this review is not being carried out in accordance with the review procedures, that could result in further review being opened. Pyrotec (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Noted. I'll further discussion at the article talkpage or the GAR. Thanks for the input.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

crossed wires

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)

At what point should disputes lead to GAR

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)

If a current GA article is regarded as being of doubtful quality, e.g., due to the presence of tag(s) that have been there for perhaps a month or more, I'd suggest that the article is in need for a re-assessment (WP:GAR). A GAR by a neutral editor (also one who has not contributed significantly to the article) is quite acceptable: it generally leads to a quicker decision process. Community reassessment tends to be slower (well there might be very little activity) but potentially might get a wide range of view points. However, if the flags are valid (they might not be), a delist is probably uncontroversial if the "problems" flagged are not fixed by someone during the GAR review process. The community review also tend to sit there waiting for an uninvolved editor to come along and close it once/if a decision is reached. Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot not working?

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)

Did you intend to create an individual reassessment or a community one? Eric Corbett 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment with no rationale

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)

How could they have started a GE reassessment without creating a reassessment page? Eric Corbett 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Easy. You don't click on the button after the template is created on the talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Then the reassessment hasn't been started and the template can be deleted. Eric Corbett 22:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's my feeling. I deleted the template. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Stale GAR?

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)

I'll close it for you. That will be regarded as a "Not listed" result, so it will need to be resubmitted. I suggest that you use the old dates. Pyrotec (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's already a GA. This was a review to see if it still met the criteria. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit clash) Sorry, you are right I should have looked more closely. Its a personal WP:GAR not a WP:GAN, so its not a "list" or "not listed" decision, its a "Keep" or "delist" decision. I'll take over review, but I've got one to finish first. Pyrotec (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

GAR needs more eyes and opinions please.

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Freedom from Want (painting)/1.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Tyntesfield

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)

Ghost in the Shell (video game) GAR needs closing

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)

As you took part in the review it wouldn't be proper for you to close it. Eric Corbett 19:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why i need someone else to close this. As the process is taking longer than it needs to.Lucia Black (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Who's been closing GARs in the recent past? Maybe ask them. Eric Corbett 23:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea. i thought this place had members that were able to do it.Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought so too, but it appears that GAR has been pretty much abandoned. I'll look through the review in the next day or so and close it appropriately. Eric Corbett 00:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

issue resolved

Closed as fail. Let that stand. That's my recommendation. None of the Ghost in the Shell articles can be considered truly stable because of several smouldering disputes. Anyone should be able to close this particular reassessment by failing it for that reason alone. Nominations are just behind the scenes activity, however. What those articles need is an editor who can sort out whether or not the way those articles are left now, after all the reshuffling from disputed merges and splits, hasn't resulted in the omission of material. Those articles as a whole and individually need to be reassessed to make sure they still provide good content but that requires an editor who will make substantive changes whenever required and that can't be a "Good Article" reviewer because it will require hands on involvement and substantial editing. Doing so will most likely introduce further instability and the potential for reigniting lengthy conflicts, whenever such an editor deems it appropriate to merge or split content from one or more of the related articles. Given that one of the primary editors, ChrisGualtieri, of Ghost of the Shell articles can't comment on the situation here, now that Lucia Black has left a message on this page, it seems appropriate that Lucia Black further recuses herself from this discussion and the Ghost in the Shell content in general altogether, per the advise previously given her by several editors, including the administrators who supervised and upheld corrective measures to stem the spread of the disputes resulting from edits made to those articles over a lengthy period. Lucia Black should not have come here, particularly not so soon after returning from a temporary ban, getting indefinitely blocked from one of the articles and becoming the subject of a mutual interaction ban which covers both Lucia Black and ChrisGualtieri. Lucia Black should let whatever processes are needed for Ghost in the Shell articles run their course without her further input and she should move to different content areas to avoid rekindling those disputes. (Edit to add, Note that ChrisGualtieri has received similar advise to avoid Ghost in the Shell articles entirely, here for example.) It seems to me that there are probably not going to be many editors willing and able to tackle the issues with the articles themselves because of the unresolved conflicts and because anyone interested in the topics has at some point already interacted with one or both of these editors and come to the conclusion that a flawed status quo for the articles is perhaps better than reigniting the disputes. Status quo because one or more primary editors can no longer provide feedback is not stability, however. Status quo because other editors can be accused of meat puppetry if they give the appearance of favoring an approach to editing the articles previously adopted or favored by either side is not article stability, however. (Edited) Verso.Sciolto (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

Reformation

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)

I decided to give this a try. I'll do the ones with obvious consensus for now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I did a few, but it sure would be convenient of a bot could update the article history like for GAN. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus elsewhere to delist a GA.

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)

A delisting should always proceed via this process. In the circumstances, I suggest one of the editors involoved in the conversation at WP:VG initiate an individual review, as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. When they open the individual review page, as well as leaving comments about why they do not think it meets the criteria, they should also provide a link to the discussion at WP:VG (just as you have done above), so the GA community can see that discussion. Let the original GA nominator, major contributors and the original GA reviewer know on their talk pages that the review has been initiated. If nothing substantial is done to fix it then the reviewer can de-list the aarticle themselves, which isn't too onerous a process. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Diary of a Wimpy Kid i think someone should put this in GAR (and fail). Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Set up an individual GAR giving below GA-level prose and structure as the reason. If there is no opposition after seven days, which I predict is the most likely scenario, you can close it as a fail DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Option to speedy delist?

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? Resolute 22:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• The GAR process may bring in an editor who wishes to overhaul the article, therefore I wouldn't be in favour of a "speedy delist." Szzuk (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing

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)

Usually an uninvolved editor closes them after four weeks if no improvements have been made. If no one does, I'll get to it two weeks from now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew it had to be an uninvolved editor, just wasn't sure about duration. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sleep hygiene

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)

Pseudo-GAR; process help needed

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)

His arguments did not seem valid, after looking at how his July reassessments reasons were repeated. I don't even remember seeing this on the GAR board even though I cleared out older submissions recently, and this has apparently been up since February 2014 which is odd. Anyways, I'd say fail it since there was a general consensus and not a single person came to its defense. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:12, 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)

Where are we at with this? I also just happened across this article and noticed the GAR has been outstanding now for nearly a year. That said I have some concerns about the process that has been followed here. Specifically an individual reassessment doesn't seem to be uncontroversial in this instance (to me anyway) as the article went through two community reassessments in 2013, both of which involved Isthisuseful (who appears to have initiated the 2nd GAR), and both of which resulted in "keeps". Given this, if the article needs reassessment, then I personally think it would be more appropriate that a community reassessment occur, not an individual one by Isthisuseful. Isthisuseful - no offence to you, I can see you can about this article being the best it can be and that is a good thing, but I don't think the process you have followed here really has been the best one. That said I'm no expert on GARs so I'm wondering if one of the volunteers here might be able to give some advice on the way forward here. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI - I've also posted a request for advice here too: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Open Good Article Reassessments. Anotherclown (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any response here or on the MILHIST co-ordinators page I've gone ahead and closed as a procedural keep. My justifications are here [1] if others wish to understand my reasoning. As I said I'm unsure of whether this is correct per policy but the GAR had been open for nearly a year so some action was req'd. If this was not correct pls contact me on my talkpage or discuss here, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2015 (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)

For what its worth I believe you are trying to do the right thing but are having issues due to your proficiency in English (or otherwise) and lack of understanding of some of the technical aspects of a GAR. That said there are a few issues with what you said - the main one is that the last three GARs were actually all closed as "keeps", which you neglect to mention above. The first one - here [2], appears to have been closed as "keep" because it was essentially abandoned by the reviewer, the second one - here [3], was closed as a "keep" with the only two !votes being "keep", while the last one - here [4], I closed as "keep" for the procedural reasons listed above. Anotherclown (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Isthisuseful: - BTW there were some technical problems / errors with the latest GAR you started, which I have now attempted to fix - these are my edits [5]. I'm not an expert on these issues so I may also have got something wrong though. Anyway I hope it helps. Anotherclown (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have also posted notifications at the various project pages - here [6], here [7], here [8], here [9] and here [10]. Pls ensure you do this in future. Anotherclown (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

GA reassessment archive

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)

History of malaria

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)

GAR by indeffed user

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)

Hit-and-run GAR

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)

It was opened as an individual assessment so it would not have shown up here. In this case, an involved editor should probably close it as no consensus cause the reasoning was poor. I'll probably do it in a few days from now if no one takes it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with transcluding

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)

The list is for community assessments only. You've opened up an individual one. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

W. H. Auden

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)

Any experienced editor is welcome to close-out the GAR which has now run the full month. There were no comments there other than from the top editor of the article itself and it would be nice if at least one other experienced editor could do the close-out of the GAR which has been open for over a month. MusicAngels (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have taken over the individual review and will see it through to completion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Natalie Portman/1

Would someone mind closing this? It's been open for over 3 months. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

GAR from 2014

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)

I've been a bit bold. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Batch reassessment

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.

• End of the lead: "Events this classification has been eligible for include the 1984 Winter Olympics Exhibition Competition, 1986 World Disabled Ski Championships, 1988 World Winter Games for the Disabled, 1990 Disabled Alpine World Championships and 2002 Winter Paralympics. Skiers in this class include 2006 New Zealander Winter Paralympian Anthony Field." A seemingly random selection of events, and an utterly random selection of one skier without an article (while we do have articles on other skiers in this category).
• "Skiers in this class may injure themselves while skiing. Between 1994 and 2006, the German national para-Alpine skiing team had a skier in the LW6/8 class that had an injury while skiing. At the end of team training while free skiing, the skier fractured the head of their tibia." And this is important enough to be included in an article about this classification because...?
• "In the men and women's biathlon, this classification was again grouped with standing classes in the 7.4 km race with 2 shooting stages 12.5 km race which had four shooting stages." This makes no sense, some words seem to be missing. The 7.4 km race should be a 7.5 km race...
• And then the last section, "Competitors": "Skiers in this class include 2006 New Zealander Winter Paralympian Anthony Field". yep, it is our friend from the lead section again, who now gets his own section for himself alone, for no discernible reason.
• This is not an exhaustive list, we have wrong and inconsistent capitalization, more typos ("single supper arm amputation", "skiwers"), and so on.

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)

Hello Fram, good to be chatting with you again. I understand what you are saying above. The answer of course is no, there is no process already set up for "good article group" reassessment. We are fortunate enough that there are two reassessment processes already set up rather than a single process: individual reassessment and community reassessment of a single article. While I believe you are absolutely correct that some good articles come in groups and that if problems exist in one article in the group, they could exist in every article in the group. However, it's hard to imagine a consensus reached for a third process being set up. There aren't that many groups. Having said that, I believe either of the two existing processes could be "bent" to allow the nomination of a group of articles for reassessment. The thing is, however, as is always the case for articles nominated for reassessment, the goal of the reassessment is not not the delisting of the articlebut the improvement of the article(s) by the nominator. Myself, I could barely keep my eyes focused as I read the issues you described above. If you are ready to do so, I would support your nomination of a group of articles in a single nomination. Prhartcom (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll see how best to nominate these, considering that it is a transclusion, I can transclude the same GA reassessment on multiple pages probably. Fram (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

One reassessment for multiple pages now created, we'll see how it goes. Talk:B1 (classification)/GA2 for 3 pages, Talk:LW6/8/GA2 for 13 pages. Fram (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fram, I just saw how you did it; you spotted and used the "pagename" parameter in the "GAR/link" template. Nice work; I'm going to remember that the next time someone asks me. I see someone has starting working on the articles; best of luck with the GAR. Prhartcom (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Snow demotion

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)

AJona1992, I don't think it's clear. We can't just remove three GA icons, as they correctly went through the process to become GA. We have a process to remove the GA icon, and the process should be followed. It sounds like an uphill battle if, as you say, three books support the impact of these titles. But you are welcome to present your case in an individual or community reassessment. Best, —Prhartcom♥ 15:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Open GARs not listed on the project page

Help! Talk:Phengaris rebeli/GA2 is stuck on Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/Article alerts#GAR. Ping: @Sasata, NK2015, and Nimswrit:.

Looks like it wasn't closed, like #"Lost" reassessment that wasn't closed. Browsing 'What links here' I found this Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old#GAR. jonkerz ♠talk 10:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not listed on the project page because it is an individual reassessment, and only community reassessments show up on the project page. Sasata, please close it. —Prhartcom♥ 15:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"Lost" reassessment that wasn't closed

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)

I'm assuming you mean review, right, Izno? I would suggest that you close the article immediately as failed. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it is an individual reassessment (both use the "GAn" notation). Yes, Izno, please close it. —Prhartcom♥ 15:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom and MrWooHoo: Should it be closed "kept" or "stricken"? I am unfamiliar with the process, so I'm happy to let someone who is more familiar fix it. --Izno (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone can close it as delisted. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Star Alliance reassesment

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)

MrWooHoo, it sounds like you have waited more than enough time. Yes, please proceed to close it, and any others you believe have been open too long. —Prhartcom♥ 15:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

MrWooHoo, it is six weeks later; you are welcome to close it. —Prhartcom♥ 16:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Papoose Peak Jumps

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)

Yellow Dingo, yes, GARs occasionally get little attention. Please close it. —Prhartcom♥ 14:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional input sought for a GAR re sources

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)

Uanna GAR

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)

Update: Another comment has been added to this, so it is best to hold off closing this right now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Crazy Eddie GA Reassessment - was delisted but...

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)

Conflict with WP:VOLUNTEER?

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)

Hijiri 88, please re-read this opening to this page. "The goal should not be to delist the article, but to restore it back to its former good article quality, if possible." We're all here to construct, not destruct. If you'd rather not volunteer, you don't have to. —Prhartcom♥ 14:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Sorry to be more than six months late. For whatever reason, I either didn't get your ping, didn't notice it, or ignored it. Your comment, and the text you quote, misses the point that a significant number of GARs (as in literally all five of the ones I have started, and presumably many others) are started because the initial GA review was inadequate. The burden of improving the article should not be on the party that thinks it shouldn't have passed GA to begin with. The text you quote, and the text I quote, applies only to those GARs that are of articles whose quality has apparently changed somewhat since they initially (rightly) passed GA review. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hijiri 88, I saw your message. I see what you mean. The guideline to improve a GAR-nominated article that you object to is positive and constructive, but does assume exactly what you said: that the article once rightly passed GA review. It certainly is troubling that some GAs shouldn't have passed in the first place, as it sounds like you certainly know. Your comment has reminded me that, just as the process to place the GA icon on the article is intentionally straightforward, the process to remove the GA icon from the article should be straightforward as well. 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; from the title you gave this section I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on that. Mostly, I would be interested in your suggestions for the exact wording of the text in this section. —Prhartcom♥ 05:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I should correct something I wrote above -- only four of the GARs I started were of articles that (I thought) probably should not have passed their initial review. The fifth (I think the one I opened around the time I started this discussion) was of an article that had passed GA back in the old days when there were different standards for sourcing. It was apparently the "wild west" days of the Encyclopedia when an article on a Roman emperor could be based entirely on (unspecified) modern translations of ancient primary sources and not give page numbers. This means that we have two categories of GARs where the current wording places an unfair burden on the user wanting to open the GAR -- the kind where there was a recent GA review that was inadequate, and the kind where the nature of the GA criteria has changed.

This also effectively means that even the assumption that the article once rightly passed GA review does 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 nomination would 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 encyclopedia and such users will not be able to do much to improve that.

Additionally, an instruction that assumes those reading it have a sinister agenda and works to counter said agenda seems to be in conflict with AGF. We should assume, except in extreme cases, that users are acting in good faith. And since there are ample examples of articles that either were recently promoted to GA but shouldn't have been, or were promoted ten years ago before the criteria changed, the current wording actually assumes something that is demonstrably not the case for a bunch of GARs.

All that said, my opinion on the instructions has changed in the past few days. I think the 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.

But I think the instructions need to be overhauled completely, as steps 1-6 apply exclusively to the OP, step 7 applies to other contributors, and steps 8 and 9 apply to the closer exclusively. A significant portion of the instructions are therefore completely useless to any one reader of said instructions, and so I think they should be broken down into different sets of instructions clearly marked "For the OP", "For commenters" and "For the closer", with perhaps separate pieces of advice for the original nominator and original reviewer. Reminding the original nominator and reviewer that they are required to assume good faith is an idea; in my experience nominators and reviewers coming along and making accusations of bad faith against the GAR nominator is a much more significant problem than actual bad faith GAR nominations. There's also enough overlap between individual and community reassessment that ... ah, it's too complicated! I've misfiled (or made some clerical mistake in) three out of five of the above-mentioned GARs, and I'm usually one of the careful ones; these were at least partly my fault, but the instructions almost certainly need to changed. I haven't made this kind of mistake with AFDs or RMs at nearly the same rate. I can't help but assume others feel the same way.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the above three out of five were 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)

Just wanted to chime in that to me the instructions in general are somewhat confusing and specifically "Do everything you can to improve the article during this time" has always been puzzling. If the backlog at GAR is to be dealt with on a continuing basis, why should a reassessing editor or editors have to improve all of an article's problems and "do everything to improve" it? In some cases the issues are severe enough that could mean re-writing the entire article. I've done a few GARs recently and have found that some articles 1)have no actual GA Review to link to (those "Wild West" days of yore), 2)references can deteriorate so much that they are basically useless for purposes of WP:VERIFY, 3)The article is full of unsourced statements and so on. I agree with User:Hijiri88 - recrafting the instructions would help folks who want to help start or comment or close Reassessments. As it stands right now the situation can be disheartening/discouraging. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm changing it to say 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)

@Prhartcom: So, when you unilaterally added the text in question last March and in your edit summary called it a [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) )

For the record, the above is at least partly based on Prhartcom's admission back in August 2015 (before the rewrite) to a failure to assume that GAR noms are acting in good faith and his having repeated said admission above (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)

How to convert reassessments

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)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

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)

GAR Closure

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)

simplify instructions with PAGENAME

{{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)

Notify major contributing editors

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)

I found https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/index.php? - is it OK link it from instructions ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Me & the Rhythm/1

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)

Still not closed!? I find this very hard to believe. Perhaps BlueMoonset and/or DragonZero could carry this out, so pinging them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DragonZero for the closure. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Stale GAR

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)

RFC: Should last year's amendment to the guidelines be reverted?

Should this edit be reverted? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Revert Per own comments above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
• Don't revert. I don't think that the new version is perfect, but most of it is an improvement so tweaking rather than reversion is what is required here. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@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)

@BrightRoundCircle: The edit did not, apparently, improve the guidelines. It was presented as a "copy edit" but included significant changes, such as the blatantly counter-policy 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)

What other instructions have changed? I'll make a list of what I see:

• The lead section and the four instructions that follow had no material changes, and the new version is arguably more readable. There is no need to revert the lead.
• The instructions have become longer and more verbose.
  • "When to use" should have all the redundancy cut. It can be concisely explained how to choose individual or community assessment: whether or not the assessment is likely to be controversial. Then list off what's controversial (article has failed nomination or has been delisted, there's an ongoing edit war, you are a major contributor to the article, or you have little experience with article assessment, or with assessment of this particular topic)
  • "How to use" is more verbose but that's okay, it gives step-by-step instructions.

Which leaves "Do everything you can to improve the article during this time." Instead of taking an all-or-nothing approach you should discuss this element by element. For example I support the new lead and the new "how to use", but I think "when to use" should be combined to a single section to remove redundancy. Finally, I find "do everything" to be both too vague and too demanding, so I would prefer it removed. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the discussion above, the "do everything" was added based on a number of false assumptions, like that all GAs that were promoted were reviewed thoroughly at the time of their initial promotion and (worse) that a number of GARs are opened in bad faith, to delist for delisting's sake. The former assumption is demonstrably false, and the latter meant this guideline was based on assumption of bad faith, something that should never be the case.

But the "do everything" part has already been removed. Your opinion regarding the other parts is noted. I need to sleep now, but I might go over it in more detail and decide whether I agree with you shortly.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:05, 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.) —Prhartcom♥ 04:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

For all I know, I did ping you, or notify you on your talk page, or make it clear in a comment directed at you elsewhere that I knew you would see that "eviscerating your work" was something I planned on doing. This discussion was a year ago: I recall discussing the problems with you somewhere around that time, but I really shouldn't be expected to go and hunt down the discussion in question a full year later. Anyway, if I recall correctly, your "work" was a unilateral rewrite of the guidelines with the effect (if not the explicit intent) of making the GAR process more convoluted and discouraging its use, and given that your rewrite only passed without comment because it was on a subpage no one watches "eviscerating" it and expecting you to get consensus before reinstating it is standard procedure. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, you didn't ping me this time either. Do you see how I pinged you? Please do so from now on when you wish to address an editor or their work; they will receive notification. Thank-you. —Prhartcom♥ 13:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: You pinged me, and I replied just over an hour later. Expecting you to monitor this page for a reply for one hour is not unreasonable. Please do not lecture me on procedures when communicating with others -- there is no obligation to specifically ping editors when you are talking about "their work", and the goal in this case was clearly to hear opinions of other editors. Now I know you specifically want to pinged whenever a discussion is taking place that might concern you, so I will do so, but what you are saying is certainly not the case for the majority of the community -- I try to divorce myself from "my work" most of the time, and find it rather annoying when I am suddenly pinged and asked to defend some comment I made about a Wikipedia process almost a year later.

Anyway, it's beginning to come back to me -- when I challenged the wording of your rewrite of the guidelines about five months after you made it, did you not respond and specifically fail in your response to disclose the fact that you were the one who had made the change?[11] You even quoted your own unilateral rewrite of the guidelines, as though it were a widely accepted basic principle, but specifically avoided saying that you had added the text you were quoting yourself without any outside input. Disclosing that fact should have been the first order of business for you, so please don't tell me that I was out of line for not inviting you to defend an edit that should have been auto-reverted as soon as it was challenged, and would have been had you not hidden that information. For all I know, when I opened this RFC a year ago I was annoyed on suddenly discovering all of this the better part of a year too late. (BTW, I definitely pinged you twice in February, and you ignored the second one.)

Anyway, editors who disapprove of a standard Wikipedia procedure on principle and want, even subconsciously, to discourage its use should probably avoid making direct edits to the instructions on how to implement the procedure without getting prior consensus for the exact changes they wish to make. It may be that making the procedure more cumbersome and thus discouraging editors from engaging in it was not your intent, but it was definitely an effect (my first two GARs had no filing problems, but my subsequent three were all had clerical errors as a result of me missing one or more of the increased number of filing steps). Please bear this in mind going forward. Thank you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Community GAR closing?

[12] Are involved editors allowed close GARs? I'm really not sure. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: WP:GAR—"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)

The definition of uninvolved for a WP:GAR is (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)

I would love others to close these, but no one does. It has been open since February. Do you actually have a problem with the close? AIRcorn (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Your fixes were very minor[13] and did not address the concerns I raised: even the specific example I gave of the plot summary introducing Mike and David in the same sentence (which was symptomatic of a larger problem of poor writing, not the beginning and end of said problem) still is not resolved. Essentially it comes down to you thinking the article meets the GA criteria (and your minor changes indicating you already thought that) and me disagreeing. In the past all the community GARs I've been involved in resulted in either (a) unanimous consensus (so it didn't matter when or by whom the close was made) that the original review was deficient and the article should be delisted or (b) a disagreement resolved by a close that said essentially "delist for now, but all parties agree to work together to improve the article and renominate later"; I don't know how we handle low-participation GARs where the two participants are split, but it seems unusual to me that it would be acceptable for one of the participants to close the way they were already arguing for it to be closed. I chose community reassessment over individual reassessment because I wanted more community involvement rather than the former which would have essentially allowed me to say unilaterally "I don't think it meets the criteria, so I have delisted"; if "community" reassessment allows another editor to unilaterally "keep", that defeats the whole purpose. That's why I came here to ask. If what User:Barkeep49 says is the common interpretation of the rules, then I wonder if they should be changed. This isn't like AFD where an article currently being discussed at GAR has a big pink banner on the top of it as long as the discussion remains open, and maybe a new system of incentives to comment on or uninvolved-close GARs should be considered. If such a system already exists but the Friends GAR was not covered because there was a problem with my initial filing ... well, that's on me, and I apologize. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe since the default state of an article is "not listed as GA", a "no consensus" result should result in delisting by default? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

So the good news is that you check that what I'm writing is correct by clicking on show next to "Guidelines for community reassessment discussion." It also offers what to do if there's no consensus 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)

Yes community reassessment does not function as it should. And you are right that is not due to the process, but the lack of participation. I am the only editor who systematically goes through these. I have closed discussions I am far more involved in than this one because there is no one else. Also the whole GA process is supposed to be lightweight. It is not relevant to compare it to AFD (the banner idea is bad), or RFCs. The ultimate aim of these is to improve the article so it meets the criteria. I had a choice of doing nothing and delisting the article or fixing it and keeping it. One option improves the encyclopaedia the other doesn't. Hijiris concerns above are not part of the criteria. That is an issue we have here (and at GAN as well), where editors impose there own conditions on what makes an article Good. The bar is not really that high. If editors want me to reopen involved closes then I will, but I feel this one functioned in an acceptable way. An editor brought problems with an article to attention and another editor assessed the article and fixed the problems relevant to the Good article criteria. I would love to make community reassessments better, but we can't force volunteers to take part in a process they don't want to. AIRcorn (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that Aircorn acted with-in current guidelines by closing that discussion. I would also be opposed to changing that as a guideline, largely because it is supposed to be lightweight and in individual (re)assessments a person with opinions closes all the time. But understand that others might feel that the guidelines should be changed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roseanne Barr/1

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)

COI concerns on My Opposition

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)

Unless you have specific neutrality concerns I would say no. Having a conflict of interest in itself is not an issue regarding getting an article to GA status, and as the process is essentially a peer review it is probably less problematic than articles that have not gone through a review. AIRcorn (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Please help to add good-article

DE-9IM no body answer.

@Krauss: In order to get an article assessed as good it needs to be nominated at WP:GAN. There are instructions there n how to do that. Let me know if you need help with this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Thanks your fast reply (!). Can you help as human? The WP:GAN not working fine. I try but the article staly as a gost. Krauss (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Raoul Wallenberg

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)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chris Field (composer)/1

This could use a closure. Sooner would be better than later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hope I did this right, its been a while since I closed one. If only a bot would take over the rest of the process once the GAR was closed. D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 23:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, DragonZero, you did. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

New section--why?

"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)

Melbourne Storm

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)

I agree the LEAD needs expansion. However, I think a paragraph in the 2010s is entirely appropriate weight for the scandal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I mean that the section should be appropriately headlined, because otherwise it is obfuscated. Someone looking at the TOC would never know such an incident even occurred. Don't you think so? DA1 (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I am editing at a bit of a remove as I am not Australian nor do I understand all (or even many) of the intricacies of rugby - before I started doing New Page Patrol I couldn't have told you that there was a league and union let alone the difference between them. However, I do not think it needs its own section after reading both articles. By way of comparison, the biggest team sports scandal in American sports in my opinion was the Black Sox Scandal and this is given mention in the lead and history sections of the Chicago White Sox article but not its own section. Similarly true for Deflategate and the New England Patriots to pick a scandal which played out during Wikipedia's history. The lack of the cap breach in the LEAD is of piece with the LEAD needing expansion on its own merits not because I think the article is failing to give DUECOVERAGE. If I were doing a GA review and it had its own section I would actually think it UNDUE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I follow league and union so am familiar with both, including this scandal. I can actually see this both ways. Melbourne is a very new club in terms of the NRL and something like this is more DUE than at other clubs with more history to draw upon (the breach basically covers a quarter of their time as a club existence). Whether this rises to the level of deserving its own heading is really something to be decided at the article itself. I don't think it matters either way as far as its good status goes as neutrality for our purposes is somewhere in an acceptable range (which varies a bit by reviewer). As Barkeep points out there are issues with the lead. The prose could be cleaned up and if I was reviewing it I would pay attention to the rivalaries, which is ripe for original research. I would suggest making the edit if you feel it should be there and then go to the talk page at the article if it is disagreed with. AIRcorn (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

GAR

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)

STATicVapor I can't speak to FAR. For GAR a single editor can certainly initiate a review. I found one of the articles under reassesment, Cody Rhodes and will leave a message to the reviewer there. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Since this topic is open and already mentioning the Cody Rhodes GAR opened by ImmortalWizard at Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2, I thought it would be useful if the attempted deletion of the page by StaticVapor, reverted by Serial Number 54129 (who pinged me), and then the administrative closure by Barkeep49, which is by no means automatic. If the issues raised in the review are relevant, and at least a few seem to have some merit, perhaps what should be done instead is to convert the individual GAR to a community reassessment, if no uninvolved editor is interested in taking it over directly—I've done such conversions before—so said issues can be taken care of, and the prose as well. I'd be happy to submit a Guild of Copy Editors request for the article, which should address any prose issues. Sourcing and updating is likely to be more tricky... BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset If someone else wants to take over the GAR, I'm happy for them to reverse me. If Wizard were to decide to stick around he could even revert me (as I don't think the TBAN at ANI will end up including this). However, it did not seem right to just keep that GAR open indefinitely. This was no reflectionon the state of the article, which I hope STATicVapor would work on improving. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, the GAR had been open for barely a week when you closed it (record time to conclude one, since they should be open for at least a week), and StaticVapor had yet to address any of the issues raised, including obvious things to fix like needed citations. It doesn't hurt anything to leave a GAR open for extra time, since the article remains a GA unless delisted; indeed, since the ideal result of a GAR is that an article that no longer meets all the GA criteria is brought back to meeting them, working with significant editor(s) of the article to get it there is the goal. I'm interested in hearing what the others think, but I expect I'll be converting this over to a community reassessment unless ImmortalWizard returns and resumes here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said you (or anyone else) should feel free to revert me. I would suggest, however, that it not be turned into a community GAR - Community tends to mean a couple editors, at most, and the article just sitting there indefinitely. It sounds like you have a good grasp on the issues present - why not just assume the GAR? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49 BlueMoonset Sorry if the speedy was incorrect, I only did it in case that was an option of what to do to close it. I do not have much investment in the article. So if it goes to community assessment or whatever happens will not effect me much. I'll try to help where I can but I won't be able to take over all the problems of the article. My concern was the "new" user (The nom) that was being discussed at WP:ANI, being overzealous on nominating articles for individual reassessment, when they had only been editing significantly since December and seemed to have a slight problem with the English language based off their posts. More than one user had an issue with this user doing GAR, which has been discussed at WP: ANI among various talk pages. StaticVapor message me! 02:09, 3 March 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)

ImmortalWizard (and BlueMoonset) I have reverted my close as you have no restriction which would prevent you from completing a GAR, other than your choosing not to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: moved it Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cody Rhodes/1. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard As I noted at your talk page this seems like a good course of events. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

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)

Timeline for pre-GAR steps

The guidelines say:

Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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:

1. If, after doing steps 2 and 4, there are no attempts to fix the problem within X days, an editor can start the GAR. What's a reasonable value for X?
2. If, after doing steps 2 and 4, attempts to fix the problem are still unsuccessful/incomplete after X days, an editor can start the GAR. What's a reasonable value for X?
3. Is step 4 above distinct from step 5 of the process for an actual individual reassessment (Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer.)?
4. Is there (or should there be) an exception to the requirement to perform the above steps (not counting 3) if an editor believes the article shouldn't have been marked as a GA to begin with? i.e. if the review that passed the article was faulty, rather than the article having lapsed from its previously-good state. (semi-related archived discussion)
5. Is there (or should there be) any kind of WP:SNOWBALL exception to the requirement to perform the above steps if an editor believes the article is a long way from GA status?

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)

To my mind the main aim is to get the article improved, be that by bringing issues to editors attention or through the proposition or actuality of a reassessment. I see GAR, and GAN for that matter, as a means to an end than an actual end point. I don't know how other editors go through the process of deciding if an article needs to be reassessed or not, but I do go through the articles tagged with {{GAR request}} every so often and occasionally even look through articles listed here, so have developed my own practical set of rough pre-GAR guidelines. Guidelines is not really the right word as in many cases it is just a judgement call, one I have been called out on.[15]

• Some articles you can just tell straight away are not "Good". These have obvious issues that have been present for a while. You still need to go through the formal process, but often I just open an individual GAR outlining the worst problems and see if anyone is interested before doing a full review.
• If the article is not terrible, but needs some work (i.e. updating) then I will not usually open a GAR, but drop a note on the articles talk page. Sometimes, depending on their recent activity, I might leave a talk message for editors that are major contributors, or just ping them to the section. Often I will drop a note at a wikiproject or two. If it still has the issues the next time I run past the article I will then open a GAR. I don't have a set time, but it is more than a week.
• If the issues are minor I might just fix them. This is usually the case of copy-editing or if I come across an article I am interested in.
• Sometimes the issues don't even exist and it is just a case of removing the template.

These match up well enough with my interpretation of the guidelines highlighted above. In answer to your questions

1. There is no exact value for X. Usually a week is the minimum to allow for the once-a-week editors, but it really depends on the individual assessing the article
2. Same as number one
3. It depends. If I go straight into a GAR then that is the notification. If I give a early heads up and then the problems still exist then I will give a second round of notifications when I open the GAR officially. From experience you get less grief for over-notifying than missing someone
4. We have to be careful when judging if an article is incorrectly passed. There is a lot of latitude given to reviewers and it almost has to be a bad faith nomination (socking is the main one) before this is actionable. In those cases the review is rendered null and this is usually discussed at the WT:GAN page after a discussion (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Suspicious GA reviews by new editor for a recent one). I would treat a new pass that has issues the same as any other I am thinking or reassessing.
5. Yes. That should be made clearer

I will often one word of warning if you are looking to get into GAR. Beware the articles that are undergoing recent conflict. I have a couple of times stepped into the middle of quite vigorous debate when I have been just looking at Good article quality control. It is best to let the dust settle in those cases. AIRcorn (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate your perspective as someone experienced with the GAR process. I just made an edit to the guidelines to try to codify the exception for articles with extensive problems. I may have swung the needle too far in the other direction - definitely open to further edits (or to reverting to status quo and discussing options). Colin M (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Cold War needs reassessment

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)

Laozi reassessment ignored

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)

GAR item not accessed

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)

G'day, I'm not a 100 per cent sure, but I think the review page should be at Talk:History of cricket to 1725/GA2 as the instructions say it should be at "Talk:ArticleName/GAn" (with n equaling the next number in the sequence, in this case it would be GA2). That might be what the issue is. Not sure how to fix it now, though, without confusing the bot. Can anyone else confirm or deny? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Rupert. It looks like I made a mistake by allocating GA1. It didn't occur to me that the 2008 GAN was 1 and this GAR should be 2. What if I close this GAR and then resubmit it as GA3? No Great Shaker (talk) 09:51, 4 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)

@No Great Shaker: I had a quick look a while ago (sorry was pressed for time) and could not see any obvious reason why it didn't transclude. I can have a more in depth look now or we could just turn it into an individual reassessment? AIRcorn (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I made some manual edits to the template and it now seems to be working. The original one seemed to be a weird mix of an individual and community one. I am not sure how you managed to do that. It would be interesting to see if this is a one off or if there is something wrong with the various bots. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, @Aircorn: thanks very much for resolving this fine mess. I racked my brains to try and figure out what I did but I've no idea. I'm almost sure I followed the instructions but, well, something went wrong. Embarrassing. I hope it is just a one-off. All looks good now and I've left the result as pending for other editors to contribute. Thanks again for your help. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: G'day, sorry for the tardy reply -- had to head off at short notice with work to help with the bushfires. Glad to see this got sorted -- thank you, Aircorn. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we consolidate GA-related talk pages?

Hi all, please share your thoughts here. Ajpolino (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden/GA3

People familiar with GAR process, please take a look at this reassessment. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A question about process.

• Individual reassessment §When to use this process says:
  • Use the individual reassessment process if... You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war
• Community reassessment §When to use this process says:
  • Use the community reassessment process if... You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war

Does that mean that any Good Article that is currently subject to an ongoing content dispute (e.g. over coverage of Tara Reade in this case) cannot be reassessed, and must remain a Good Article until the dispute is resolved?

But wait, Wikipedia:Good article criteria says:

• Immediate failures – An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as a quick fail) if it is not stable due to edit warring on the page

So you can't have an individual or community reassessment, but you can "quick fail" it? As in any time it's necessary to protect a page to prevent edit warring, the GA should be simultaneously delisted while the page is protected?

I see that this issue is discussed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joe Biden/1#Are stability-based GARs appropriate? Perhaps a meta-discussion is in order, or the process instructions need to be clarified. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This does seem to be causing some confusion at the moment. My take is that the stability criteria are necessary for practical purposes. It is almost impossible to review an article if it is chopping and changing. This does not just apply to edit warring and content disputes, but to articles undergoing rapid expansion or being rewritten cooperatively by editors. It is best to wait for the article to settle before nominating it for either a review or reassessment. FWIW the immediate fail guidelines do not apply to reassessments. Here an article has already been judged as being "Good". Someone has put the work into getting it up to a certain standard and another person has taken the time to review that work. It is only fair that it is given a chance for interested parties to try and fix any issues brought up. I feel this is made pretty clear with the above wording, but maybe some clarification is needed to make it clear that articles should not be brought here during content disputes. Personally I would prefer to wait until the Biden issue has calmed down before making any proposals on wording change, but someone else can start the ball rolling if they want. AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Archive

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)

I wonder if there's anyway we could get one of the bots that does this to do a special run for us to fix this (maybe it could be done with AWB also?) and then use them to archive from there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The last editor I approached was TheSandDoctor, but they never got back to me. That was two weeks ago. It has been at the bot noticeboard a few times and we have made no progress. While ideally we will get a bot to do this, I don't know if any current archive bots work with subpages. @BlueMoonset: maybe one from DYK could? Either way it is getting a bit ridiculous and I am happy to sort through them manually. AIRcorn (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Have manually updated the archive. I still need to change the instructions at the main page. I was thinking it might be a good opportunity to see if anything else about the instructions needs updating. Or even if anything else in general needs to be done to improve this rather neglected area of the project. AIRcorn (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Instructions

There are multiple sets of instructions:

• Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Maintenance – linked from the box at the top right of this page. Created 1 February 2010‎ by Geometry guy
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/archiving – transcluded at the top of archives 23–59 (missing from archives 1–22 and 60 up). Created 25 June 2007‎ by Geometry guy by moving from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines – transcluded at the top of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Created 21 June 2007‎ by Geometry guy, replacing Wikipedia:Good article review/instructions
• Wikipedia:Good article review/instructions – Created 14:30, 2 June 2007‎ by Mike Christie by splitting from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

— 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)

Archives 4 – 22 had instructions directly inserted at the top, rather than transcluded by a template. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

VeblenBot

• Special:PrefixIndex/User:VeblenBot/C
• GAR subpages
• Good article subpages

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)

AnomieBOT

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)

• Special:PrefixIndex/User:AnomieBOT/C

Toronto Chester station

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)

Baji Rao I delisting

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)

It's explained at the article history template page, ctrl+F "good article reassessment". Kingsif (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Still gibberish to me, sorry. I'll leave it - if it matters, someone will fix it eventually. All these links to transcluded pages, article ids etc are far too much hassle. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sitush, It looks to me as though BlueMoonset has set up the template for you. This does strike me as a task that could be automated, but we would need a coder to do it. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Kanye West/1

Input is welcome for this GAR. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How long does an individual GAR generally stay open?

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)

Hog Farm, there's no definite rule, and unfortunately no real way to track them (I'm pretty sure I have some GARs open that I've forgotten about from months ago), but my rule of thumb is: If they would meet any of the quick fail criteria, leave messages on relevant talk pages, wait seven days, and delist if nobody responds. Users can always renominate if they come back after the time and are ready to improve the article. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You can track them through Category:Good article reassessment nominees. It includes all reassessments (including community ones). I run through them every now and again and ping any stalled ones. Much like GAN there are no set rules on how long to wait before closing. Seven days is reasonable if no one responds, usually I keep them open a bit longer if editors express a willingness to work on them and there are genuine attempts to improve the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

My life is better because I know that category exists. Thanks, Aircorn! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent flurry of GA Reviews and Noms that seem somewhat hurried...

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations § Recent flurry of GA Reviews and Noms that seem somewhat hurried...

—BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Fake review

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)

@Moxy: see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Recent flurry of GA Reviews and Noms that seem somewhat hurried... AIRcorn (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Help request at Talk:Stephen Fry's Podgrams/GA2

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)

Delisting GAs via the AfD process

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:

• Is there a set of guidelines or criteria for when to use the GA reassessment process versus the AfD process?
• Does an AfD decision count as a formal GA reassessment?

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)

They are two different processes. In theory, an article should meet notability guidelines to be a GA, but as standards have become more refined, there are clear cases where some don't: songs and episodes commonly. The content may still meet all the GA criteria, but if the article subject doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, it should go to AfD. GAR and AfD are not interchangeable in any way. Kingsif (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Clique (song)

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)

Yes I agree, the review definitely felt too short and the article is strong but needs a reassessment. --K. Peake 06:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The format is not working

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)

I tidied the reassessment. Not sure how that happened, having never seen it before. Is it possible you copy pasted some extraneous text into the reassessment? Aircorn (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying! No extraneous text, no. I even checked. Very weird, but thanks for tidying up. Jeppiz (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Will keep an eye out to see if anything weird like this happens again. If it is not a one off I might have to look into the template or seek some help from more qualified editors. Aircorn (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

GAR needs closed

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)

Closed. The article history template requires a keep or delist, which doesn't quite work here, but I noted it as a delist given that seemed the least misleading of the two. CMD (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changed for individual reassessment instructions

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.

1. Instructions seven and eight are basically the same. I suggest we merge them.
2. It speaks for itself the discussions should only be closed when they have concluded. The last sentence also implies that the discussion must have been concluded (otherwise it wouldn't have an outcome), so I suggest deleting that line.
3. I assume that many reassessments will not receive any comments. I propose we explicitly say that reviewers may close the reassessment after seven days of inactivity when nobody has indicated they want to step up.
4. The old project assessments will probably not have any value. I suggest the reviewer re-assesses the article themselves.

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)

All this seems reasonable. Looking through it I would also remove the (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments from 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)

Good point. New suggestion for 7:

After the individual reassessment discussion, you must decide if the article has improved enough to meet the good article criteria. Edit the individual reassessment page of the article to close the discussion. Explain the outcome of the reassessment. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:38, 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)

Abandoned assessments

What happens if the reviewer decides to ignore the reassessment they started? Aircorn and I have seen two reviews be ignored for long periods of time, and those reviewers chose not to respond, even though other editors did. It doesn't seem like the current instructions have a plan for that. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As this is a matter of 'what to do when process fails', I think that will merit it's own section under the last instruction. I propose that we codify what you guys did before.

In case the assessment becomes inactive

If an individual assessment has become inactive, leave a message on the talk page of the reviewer. If there is no response after 7 days, any editor can take over the review and close as appropriate.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Average Joe/GA1

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)

FWIW, I agree with the quick fail; that article doesn't know what it's about. Someone just has to close it. Kingsif (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

That's quite helpful actually. I'll get around to closing it as delist myself if nobody objects. CMD (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Individual vs community

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)

Where are you seeing this? Wikipedia:Good article reassessment currently says "You disagree with an earlier relist or delist decision", if it says differently elsewhere it should probably be edited to match. CMD (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: After I posted this message I decided to be WP:BOLD and add it myself :-) Sorry for the confusion. I first thought it would be a good idea to discuss a change to a policy page. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, perhaps it should be "keep" not "relist"? CMD (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Done! PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

2020 community GARs

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:

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/McGill University/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Stephen Harper/1
• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Scouts BSA/1

Best, CMD (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your work. I will look to close them in the next few days if no one beats me. Aircorn (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Simple way to remove GA status?

I just came upon Eckhart Tolle (edit | 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)

There is only the long process as far as I'm aware. Given consensus on the talk page, I think this could be done boldly, directly going to point 8 of the individual GAR process (avoiding the spamming of WikiProjects). There is some half precedent of newly promoted articles, where the promotion is reverted if the GA review is poor. Maybe I'm saying something highly controversial here though. Not sure if skipping steps would mess with GA counters.. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It was passed in 2010 and appears to be a proper review so rolling back the pass is not an option. If you think it no longer meets the criteria you can start an individual reassessment and point out the major faults (you don't have to conduct a full review at first). Let major contributors or wikiprojects know and then if no one replies within a week or so then you can delist it. You can't just remove the status (minus redirects - and even then it is best to record it) as there needs to be a record in the article history of what happens and a chance given for editors to fix the problems. Aircorn (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I really feel like the individual process is too heavy for articles this far out of compliance. But maybe IAR isn't the way to solve that, and we should have a discussion about having a 'quick-fail' GAR, where we omit the waiting time and obligatory spamming. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If someone has taken the effort to get an article through the GA process, we should give them an opportunity to improve it. The individual process can be quite simple if the article is far from meeting the criteria. I have started many by just listing one or two major flaws and then delisted them if no one responds. It is no more effort than a theoretical quick fail as you still need to list why it fails, it just gives the article a chance. Aircorn (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Aircorn (talk) above. The instructions for GAR say "give one week". And that is the current practice. It was suggested to me two days ago, that, with an obvious failure of GA criteria, to chop off the one-week wait and fail a reassessment. In some ways a quick-fail does the job; in other ways, notifying involved editors is an important measure of accountability and reliability, and embodies the Wikipedia value of consensus. Mind you, very few involved editors come forward and comment, even after you place the {{subst:GARMessage}} on their talk pages. Then again, very few page creators are around from 10-12 years ago. So, with the really older articles, it is likely that a GAR will get no response. I know that is seems like a pointless exercise at times, but we ought to follow the Wikipedia value of consensus. (Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done) --Whiteguru (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Instructions for what to put in oldid when failed GAR

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 have been putting the id of the version after I remove the GA tag, but you're adding of the id immediately before that seems reasonable as well. CMD (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I generally wait one day to allow the bot to generate the correct oldid. Wound up two GAR's yesterday, let me check... yes, that works, wait one day and get the updated oldid from article history. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Whiteguru: could you expand on which bot and where it's generating the oldid? I'm not seeing a bot on Talk:Sheng Long or its article for example. [[User:] (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I don't know which bot exactly does this. If I put in an oldid when I finalise the GAR (into article history), the following day the page history will show another oldid ... this is my experience. I take what the page history shows the following day, odd that this may seem. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think any bots worked on reassessments. If they do this would be good news, I have been updating everything manually. Aircorn (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I put the date that the reassessment opened as the date and the oldid from when I close the reassessment. This can be a matter of months for some (if not most). I can recall an editor changing it once to match. Not sure if the correct procedure has been discussed before. Aircorn (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I use this as my guide for updating reassessments with the correct oldid. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Will it be controversial?

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)

So long as the points you make are clear and link to the WP:GACR, please do open an individual reassessment. That's a very old promotion which looks nothing like its promoted form, so a review would be useful. CMD (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a FYI that primary sources are usually not in themselves an issue if they are used correctly. Aircorn (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Aircorn: My main problem is that they are taken at face value when it comes to facts. Veverve (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)