Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

This page, a part of the Good article talk page collection, is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to go retrieve it. Current Archive location: Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive4

Archives
2006 2007: January - May 2007: May - December 2008: January -

Ireland GAR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few days ago Malleus Fatuorum demoted Ireland without any notification other than initiating the GAR by notice before demoting it 15 minute later. When I questioned him about it, his reply seemed rather dimissive and uncooparative imho. I noticed that under the GAR individual reassessment instructions it specifically says "Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer." I don't see that that was done and though I am not a major contributing editor no notice was even given to the Ireland WikiProject either, so while the article may have some issues I think demoting from GA was improperly executed. Comments would be appreciated as Malleus Fatuorum has now gone into semi-retirement and his reply suggested bringing it here. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to go with Malleus in this delist. There are 3 "citation needed" tags and 1 "weasel" term present in the article. "Places of interest" is more like a list and only has 1 reference in the entire section. All you need is one "citation needed" or "weasel" tag to fail the good article criteria. And keep in mind that the GAR notice is for any case where GA is listed under GAR. You don't need to go through GAR to delist an article as long as you can confidently explain why you undertake such actions and how the article is measured against the criteria. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not asking for an opinion on whether the delisting was correct or not but if the process was properly executed. I would have been happy to try to fix the article's problems and so avoid delisting. So, according to the response it seems that OhanaUnited also agrees that not notification of the GAR needs to be given, either on the article talk page or the WikiProject even though it is a specific instruction and was never given in this case. That makes two editors who seem to ignore your own GAR instructions and seems disrespectful to other editors who might jump in to fix the issues before a decision is made. At least in FAR time is given for editors to come to an article's rescue but 15 minutes for a GAR is not enough time, no matter how awful an article may be. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The delisting guidelines are only guidelines, not instructions. I do wish reviewers would more often allow time for editors to respond (even a day or two is better than nothing) but this is a matter for reviewer discretion, particularly for articles which obviously need much work: reassessment is not a sickbed. I do not find Malleus' response dismissive, but helpful advice: improve and renominate!

The GA process is designed to make it easy to list articles and easy to delist articles. This means that GA status is not a right, which once attained, can only be removed with due reverence. Those who wish to maintain the GA status of an article should maintain and improve the article.

However, Ohana's comment that "All you need is one "citation needed" or "weasel" tag to fail the good article criteria." is wrong and is exactly the kind of bean counting that once gave GA a bad name. His final remarks are confusing: what he means, I think, is that community reassessment is not required for delisting (it never was). However all delisting decisions must be accompanied by a reassessment page. This one has one and therefore process has been followed. You can ask for a community reassessment if you disagree with Malleus' decision, but it seems you do not. Nor do I. Geometry guy 10:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I said about the "citation needed" tag is because it fails criteria 2(a) and the "weasel word" fails criteria 1(b). I have been tolerant on criteria 2(a) already, allowing one or two with citation needed tags to remain as GA especially if the article is very long. And please don't try to shift the blame to only one person (aka me). No personal attack please. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My remark addressed the comment not the editor: that is not a personal attack. I am not trying to shift any blame for anything anywhere. There's no blame here to shift. I am only pointing out that nowhere in 2a ("it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline") or 2b ("reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)") does it say there should be no "citation needed" tags, and nowhere in 1b ("it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation") does it say there should be no "weasel words" tags; further WP:WEASEL isn't even listed there. Any editor can add a tag at any time: that does not mean there is a valid concern. Reviewers should be encouraged to read the article and apply the criteria, not count tags. Geometry guy 17:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Although WEASEL is not listed outright, the spirit ideology is to avoid "ambiguous, uninformative, or non-specific", as stated in Words to avoid 1st section OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification here, it is my view that Ww2censor is being disingenuous in his claim that I "demoted Ireland without any notification other than initiating the GAR by notice before demoting it 15 minute later." In fact I delisted it without any notification whatsoever. That the [[WP:GAR]] template was on the page for 15 minutes is irrelevant, as I already tried to explain. It was not there as any kind of notification of anything, simply as a convenient way of generating the review page. Neither did I delist the article simply because it had a few "citation needed" tags; I delisted it because it was (in my view) inadequately cited as per 2b, and the amount of work needed to correct that was substantial. I take issue with Ww2censor's remark that my reply to him was "dimissive and uncooparative", and would urge him to get to work fixing the article instead of wasting further time here. Unless that is, he believes that the article does in fact meet the GA criteria, in which case a community review would be appropriate.

I have never delisted an article lightly; in the case of Ireland I judged that the amount of work required was too much to be completed during the hold period. The fact that the work has not yet been done six days later, or even started, tends to reinforce my view rather than the reverse. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Malleus is one of the most careful and thorough reviewers at GA (most definitely not a bean-counter!), and has my complete support. Geometry guy 18:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse MF and his delisting. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 02:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the delisting. MF made a judgement call and acted within GA review guidelines. Majoreditor (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems most of you are focusing on the delisting and not on the process. I still believe that notification should be given per your own guidelines and is just common courtesy, especially for the main article of a WikiProject that is assessed as Top & High. At least with FAR and FA notification is given and time is allowed for editors to address outstanding issues but I get the impression you guys don't seem to care too much about that. If you all think notification is a guideline to be ignored, so be it. Perhaps the notification guideline should be made compulsory. Malleus may well be a careful GARer but it is still a pity you endorse such non-notification irrespective of the merits of delisting or not. As a side issue, of course someone can renominate it after addressing the issues Malleus mentioned but from experience regaining an article's previous status is normally more difficult than avoiding delisting. ww2censor (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Fix the article and renominate. GA is not a God-given right. The process was correctly followed, as has been been made abundantly clear. Or if you can't fix the article then shut the fuck up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That is just plain rude Malleus. I have moved on from talking about your delisting but am interested in the GAR guideline concerning notification, so why can't you address that. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to see that you've moved on from blaming me for delisting one of your favourite articles, one that fell so far short of the GA criteria that it was an embarassment. Why not fix it instead of wikilawyering here? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of Malleus's delisting, I find his incivil comment (STFU) highly inappropriate and a disgrace to GA. My opinion on individual delistings without prior notification is that they should only be done when the article was inappropriately listed (such as being listed without going through GAN) or the article clearly meets the quick-fail criteria. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the article Ireland is one of those that fell through the cracks. It was promoted to GA on April 15, 2006 but the good article criteria was just created in March 2006 and still in infancy for quite a long period of time. I am confident to say this article didn't go through GAN (or if it went through GAN, it met the criteria at that time but not the current criteria) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think MF or STFU-MF as he is also known, has flouted the whole idea of process here. If an article has fallen below the required standard it should be first given the chance to come back up to scratch. It is a long and tedious process to re-attain GA status. Acting like a dick in response to the queries on this summary justice leaves me with no doubt that he is not in a fit place to remove the GA status in the first place. He is not a responsible editor, but in fact a loose cannon. It is just basic politeness to let other editors repair the day to day damage that can happen to these articles. I think a RFC should be made as this is clearly obscene.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/guidelines#delist I have to ask in what way is this confirmation to wikipedia process. Please outline in full how MF's actions comply with GA delisting here.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Those who think they know better than me may find a comparison between this complaint that Ireland wasn't put on hold with this recent complaint that another article was put on hold instructive. Then again, probably not, as this is just a witch hunt, and who cares about the facts. I hope that Hildanknight and ZincBelief will have the courage of their convictions and offer their services to help improve the encyclopedia by undertaking a few reviews themselves. For myself, I am having nothing more to do with it or with them. Go find yourself another victim. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a complaint to me. You can't just remove GA or FA status off the bat. You have to let people address the issues, or as it says on the guidelines page, address them yourself. I have participated in reviews before, they left me realising how poor wikipedia can be, but for goodness sake, you must appreciate that you have to let people have a say. Go and tell somebody else to STFU rather than bleeding over this page.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Any analogy between GA and FA is false—they completely different processes. GA status, in fact, can be removed off the bat by any editor. Guidelines in only call for a grace wating period (GA Sweeps guideline says about two days). If nothing happens, the artile is delisted. In this case the discussion showed that the result would have been the same even if Malleus had followed guideline and waited for two days. So the question about appropriatenes of the delisting is moot. Ruslik (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed point 4. ALLOW OTHER EDITORS A CHANCE TO RESPOND. This is an important point. It is a very normal process in wikipedia, and one which STFU-MF decided he didn't care about, didn't apologise for, and started abusing us verbally when we suggest he should. Had other editors been allowed a chance to respond, then the outcome might have been different. --ZincBelief (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Grow up. GA isn't a God-given right. It's given by one person and is taken away by one person. Live with it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've grown up already thank you. Try following the guidelines for Good Article Review before starting a review. It might help.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And I usually give at least 7 days of grace period (sometimes all the way up to a month, which is sometimes excessive). Wow, I almost couldn't believe what ZincBelief wrote, stating MF "acting like a dick", "not a responsible editor", "a loose cannon" in 2 sentences sounds like a personal attack. MF, I know you're frustrated so I got this page for you to read and let you steam out (it's written by me and Lara) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That page just about sums up my feelings about this. I get demonised when I don't put an article on hold and I get abused when I do.[1] This irresponsible editor, loose cannon, and all-round shit is out of here. Someone else's turn to be the whipping boy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe it. What part of telling somebody to shut the fuck up and ignoring point 4 of the GA delisting guidelines do you believe does not fall under these?--ZincBelief (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring point 4 of a guideline does not fall under WP:DBAD (WP:BURO and WP:IAR seem more relevant). The delisting guidelines are only guidelines, not instructions, and guidelines exist to reflect consensus, not determine it. It is quite common for reviewers to exercise discretion about point 4, which was not bolded until July this year. I bolded it and added the courtesy notification recommendation to reflect and encourage best practice. I wish reviewers would follow it more often, as delisting without pausing for response has the potential to cause unnecessary problems and bad feeling, as this case illustrates. (Sadly, though, notification does not guarantee a problem-free reassessment.)

Reassessment is not a sickbed, and GA status is not a badge which once attained can only be removed with due reverence. GA is an assertion that an article meets the criteria; those who wish to maintain an article's status need to maintain its quality in line with these criteria. Don't blame the messenger.

GA is a process where individual reviewer judgement is foremost. Community reassessment is available for cases where the result of that judgement is questioned or challenged. I therefore welcome the initiation of a community GAR for this article, and hope we can draw a line under the angry remarks by both sides. Instead, as several editors are now doing, let us focus on improving the article and addressing its current failings with respect to the criteria. These are the raisons de'etre for GA. Geometry guy 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They are not listed as guidelines, they are listed as instructions. I don't see any reason for flouting them as guidelines, or ignoring them as instructions. Can we ignore criteria as well? Where does this stop?--ZincBelief (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Most things stop at WP:FIVE. The criteria are guidelines in the technical sense, whereas the delisting guidelines are not, which may be why WP:GA refers to them as "instructions" (WP:GAR does not). We need to iron this difference out, anyway. ZincBelief has initiated a discussion at WT:GA. Geometry guy 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 40 problems

What is going on with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 40? Approximately, the last ten days have not been archived.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My fault, but I fixed it early today. Try purging your cache. Geometry guy 08:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Individual reassessments to group reassessments?

Given that Talk:Homosexual_transsexual/GA1 seems to be requesting a group reassessment, is it possible for a system to be implemented that allows an individual reassessment to be easily converted into a group assessment? -Malkinann (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this one, but I can't think of an easy way to do this in general. Fortunately, it is fairly rare. Geometry guy 10:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it may become more common in the future: "I wish to have this article placed for community assessment unless you're willing to assist in repairing what you believe the faults to be."[2] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yuk. GAR shouldn't be used as a fix-up shop. Majoreditor (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we shouldn't form our guidelines around threats like this! Geometry guy 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps is a really good learning experience; I'd recommend it to anyone who has a rose-tinted view of this project. Doesn't matter what you do, you're in the wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

My initiation to the GA project came, essentially, on the other side of an earlier GA sweeps process. It is an extremely hard thing to do well, and you are going to meet conflict eventually no matter what you do. Much credit to Malleus for sweeping so well on so many articles. I would like to sweep the medicine articles that TimVickers tagged, but I am not sure that I have the dedication, the time or the thick skin required! Geometry guy 23:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm bloody sure that I don't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The distinguishing feature of an individual GAR is that the reviewer who opens it makes the final decision. We cannot do anything about threats except call them. If the reviewer is unwilling or unsuitable to be the judge and jury, then a community GAR should be used instead. However, such misapplications are rare. More common are cases in which an individual reassessment is initiated (indeed often concluded) and challenged. In these cases, the natural thing to do is to close and record the disputed individual reassessment and start a community GAR: moving the individual reassessment would, in most cases, create a mess and prejudice the case. Geometry guy 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

As this specific article in whose review the threat was made stands right now, I would delist it. So I will wait to see whether other editors offer any input before deciding whether or not to close the individual review and initiate a group review, or simply to delist the article. My only point in raising this here was that it seemed like a curious concidence to have happened twice in a few days, when it has previously been such a rare occurrence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Edward the Martyr GAR?

I'm sure there must be a good and obvious reason why the GAR requested at Talk:Edward the Martyr isn't showing up here, but it's not obvious to me. Can someone have a look? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The individual reassessment at Talk:Edward the Martyr/GA1 is still open. Nobody has requested a community GAR that I can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so long as it's nothing to worry about that's good. Ta, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs updating: heading Yale controversy

Facts not right. According to the the New York Times the dates do not match up.

[[3]]

I am very new to this so bare with me.

Cleo Athalia77 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please link to the article concerned. We are not omniscient here. Geometry guy 23:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding Good Articles to the main page

There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal#Introducing_GA_to_main_page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

GAR not showing up

I nominated Tila Tequila for reassessment over a week ago and has yet to appear on the project page. I followed the procedure completely, but nothing turns up here. Did I make a mistake somewhere? DiverseMentality 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me today. It didn't show up until I went and edited it the thing. All of a sudden, it showed up. Deavenger (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:PURGE. Geometry guy 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not showing up because you opened an individual reassessment, not a group one. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a better answer. You are the boss, DiverseMentality: it is up to you to decide whether to delist the article in your reassessment. If you want help, it can be converted into a community reassessment. If it is disputed, likewise. Geometry guy 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers, I was unaware that individual reassessments weren't listed. I guess I'll give the article a total of two weeks for the problems to be addressed and delist if they aren't. Thanks for the help guys. DiverseMentality 21:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)