Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines: Difference between revisions
BlueMoonset (talk | contribs) should always notify the original nominator and reviewer; Aircorn was also of this view (see edit on 20 March 2018) |
partial revert of bold edit of 22:09, 3 March 2016 – contrary to the assertion of its edit summary, this was a guideline change, which wasn't discussed. |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
** You are a major contributor to the article |
** You are a major contributor to the article |
||
** You disagree with an earlier delist decision |
** You disagree with an earlier delist decision |
||
** You don't see any ongoing content dispute or edit war |
|||
** You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article) |
** You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article) |
||
** You disagree with a fail at [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations]] (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it) |
** You disagree with a fail at [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations]] (however, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for this; it is usually simpler to renominate it) |
||
Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability ''may'' be considered. |
|||
<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold">How to use this process</span> |
<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold">How to use this process</span> |
Revision as of 21:55, 4 May 2020
Good article reassessment (GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether an article that is listed as good article (GA) still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is discussed on the article talk page and concluded by a single editor in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed for discussion on this page and are concluded according to consensus. Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a fail during a good article nomination. This is not a peer review process; for that use Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. 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.
Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment:
- Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
- Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
- Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.
A list of all open GA reassessment nominees may be found at Category:Good article reassessment nominees.
Articles needing possible reassessment
Occasionally, rather than initiating either individual or community reassessment, an editor will merely tag the article as possibly needing reassessment. These tagged articles are listed on this page and each needs the attention of an editor to decide if reassessment is required. To tag an article, {{GAR request}}
is placed at the top of the article talk page.
Individual reassessment
When to use this process
Note
How to use this process
|
Community reassessment
When to use this process
Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate, wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered. How to use this process
|
Guidelines for individual reassessment discussion |
---|
Please also see the community discussion guidelines that may also apply to an individual discussion.
Begin by consulting the good article criteria before commenting on whether an article should have its status changed or not. All suggestions for improving articles are welcome, but criticisms not based on the good article criteria do not ordinarily disqualify an article from good article status. Note also that if an article is listed at good articles, it almost always means that someone considers it to be of good quality, so if it no longer meet the criteria, an explicit explanation is more likely to be appreciated by other editors than a general comment that the article is inadequate. Those who add an article to good article reassessment should feel free to fix problems with the article; this is not regarded as a conflict of interest and should encourage regular editors of the article to engage more actively with the reassessment process. Good article reassessment is not a deletion discussion, but many of the guidelines for contributing to such discussions (such as the essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) contain applicable advice. |
Guidelines for community reassessment discussion |
---|
Please also see the individual discussion guidelines that may also apply to a community discussion.
Begin by consulting the good article criteria before commenting on whether an article should have its status changed or not. When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user. (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.) Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than four weeks have passed since the reassessment was opened. All articles should be listed for at least seven days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate. The clearer the consensus, the sooner the discussion can be closed. In particular, it is not recommended to close any discussion that has a comment less than 2–3 days old, unless
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. Closing a discussion requires taking responsibility, determining the consensus of the editors, and taking action where necessary. Consensus is determined by weight of argument rather than counting votes: for instance, the article may have changed since being listed for reassessment, and some comments may no longer be applicable. Compare the comments made in the discussion with the current state of the article and with the criteria for good articles.
If there is no consensus, consider adding a new comment rather than closing the discussion, to see if consensus can be found. If in doubt, leave notice that you intend to close the discussion, and wait 2–3 days for further comments before closing. In particular, strongly contested discussions, where consensus is difficult to determine, should only be closed by those with more experience of reassessment discussions. |
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, |