Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Shortcuts:

Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status. There are two types of reassessment: individual reassessment and community reassessment. An individual reassessment is initiated and concluded by a single user in much the same way as a review of a good article nomination. Community reassessments are listed on this page for discussion and are closed according to consensus. Where possible editors should conduct an individual reassessment, although community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial. Community reassessments can also be used to challenge a previous delisting or 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.

Before attempting to have any article de-listed 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, if the templates will help reviewers find the problems. For example, it may be helpful to add a {{Verify credibility}} tag after a source you think is dubious. Do not tag bomb the article.
  3. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing.
  4. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.edit guidelines

Individual reassessment

When to use this process
  • Use this process if you find an article listed as a good article which does not satisfy the good article criteria.
  • Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment.
  • If you have delisted the same article before, are a major contributor, or delisting could be seen as controversial consider requesting a community reassessment.
  • Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet. For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself.
How to use this process
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page.
  2. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page.
  3. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number.
  4. Allow time for other editors to respond. Also, notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script), relevant WikiProjects for the article and, if recently GA reviewed, the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages. (replace ArticleName with "the article name" and n with "1" for community reassessment, or with "2" for individual reassessment)
  5. If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at Wikipedia:Good articles, remove {{Good article}} from the article, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the talk page and update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page (see example). Also change any project assessments on the talk page.
  6. If you decide the article has improved enough to now meet the criteria you can keep it as a Good article. To do this, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the talk page and update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page.

Community reassessment

When to use this process

If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, first consider trying to reassess the article yourself (through an individual reassessment). However use a community reassessment if

  • you are not confident in your ability to assess the article or believe that delisting the article will be seen as controversial.
  • you disagree with a delisting by another editor.
  • you disagree with a fail at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. However, it is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review; it is usually simpler to renominate it. If some time has lapsed since a delisting or fail it is better to renominate.

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
  1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the second bold link in the template to create a community reassessment page (this is a subpage of the good article reassessment page).
  2. Append your reason for bringing the article to good article reassessment, sign it, and save the page. The article should automatically appear on this page within an hour.
  3. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer, major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script) and relevant WikiProjects for the article. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|GARpage=n}} on talk pages. (replace ArticleName with "the article name" and n with "1" for community reassessment, or with "2" for individual reassessment)

← (All archives) Crystal Clear app file-manager.png Good article reassessment (update archive number) (Current archive: 59) →

Articles needing review and possible reassessment[edit]

The Good articles listed below would benefit from the attention of reviewers as to whether they need to be reassessed. In cases where they do, please open an individual or community reassessment and remove {{GAR request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply delete the template from the article talk page.

The intention is to keep the above list empty most of the time. If an article is currently a featured article candidate, please do not open a reassessment until the FAC has been closed. To add an article to this list, add {{GAR request}} to the article talk page.

See also

Articles listed for community reassessment[edit]

Ubuntu (operating system)[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

Lots of single sentences, poorly structured, although reasonably well referenced. Might be salvageable if somebody wants to take it on. Jamesx12345 13:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been any significant progress, so I'm delisting it. The article really needs one person to bring it together to a coherent whole, as it is there is a lot of redundant information and a large number of single sentence paragraphs. Jamesx12345 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OS X[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

My main concern is that there is a massive number of [citation needed]s throughout. The article was promoted to GA back in 2010, and upkeep has been scant. The "features" section is also very scattershot and choppy. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


Chalcogen[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending
User:Axiosaurus has expressed concerns on the talk page of this article that certainly warrant a reassessment of the article's GA status. I therefore request a community reassessment to fix the problems Axiosaurus has pointed out, as well as point out and fix new ones, so that the article may conform to the GA criteria. Double sharp (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ada Wong[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result pending

This article's contents are hardly neutral. Not only are there next to no mentions of anything negative about Ada Wong in any form, but the article is full of seemingly unnecessary and repetitious references to how great she is. It reads more like an advertisement for the game than like an encyclopedia article, as it is filled with quotes praising the character for various things that wouldn't look out of place on the back of a game box in a store. Since neutrality is a requirement for good article status, I would think that this article does not meet that status. It very clearly was written by a fan of Ada Wong, and by my estimation would merit a fairly large amount of editing before being eligible for good article status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roflcopter gamer (talkcontribs) 21:41, 14 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Note: this reassessment request is the first (and thus far only) edit on Wikipedia by user Roflcopter gamer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
If this will be the only edit the nominator will make on the site, I can keep an eye on it. GamerPro64 19:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see where the nominator is coming from: I didn't see any criticism of the character at all, and that's just unnatural. I mean, I'm a big fan of Lightning, but I did my best to include a wide range of opinions on the character, positive, middling and negative. Added to that, the lead section does not conform with WP:LEAD and some of the references seem a little suspect. It should be noted that the user who seems to have contributed most to this article has an occasionally questionable history in the eyes of the WikiProject Video Games community. I remember trying to make some edits to the article to tidy it up, but most of them were reverted or deleted. This just reads like an effusive tribute to the character. In the face of this, I think that this article should be downgraded and undergo major work, then possibly renominated when it seems ready, to stand or fall at that time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

With respect to reception, pretty much all reception sections in articles on this topic and all reviews of the games may as well begin "Resident Evil is very badly written but...". Have you attempted mining the reviews of the film she was in? Those are less likely to have gaming journalism's positivity bias. --erachima talk 23:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Positivity bias? erachima, are you talking about the Four Point Scale, or about overenthusiasm toward female game characters who aren't helpless princesses? Tezero (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
All of the above and then some. The reviews are half advertizement, the expectations for writing are set VERY low due to the medium and franchise she's from, she's naturally reviewed in contrast to the president's deadweight daughter, and so on.
In short, the current reception may well accurately reflect the published opinions of reviewers, the real issue is that there's a load of systemic bias in there. --erachima talk 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that seems to settle it. We can't inject any more "Your character is bad and you should feel bad" into the page than neutral mentions of the apparently hideous reception given to the games she was from and her cast-mates in them. Things like this are why, despite its use for conveying objective facts that might be useful in purchasing decisions, I very much disvalue the ratings/qualitative-assessment aspect of game reviewing. (There's also the fact that not all gamers value the same things, but that's getting off-topic.) Tezero (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As I said, the major omission I'm noting is that the reception says nothing about what people thought of her in the movie other than some vacuous "fans are excited" thing that probably shouldn't even be in there. --erachima talk 05:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness though, "Play editor Gavin Mackenzie criticized her perceived "bitch" personality in Resident Evil 4 in retrospective from the events of Resident Evil 2" and "Matt Cundy of GamesRadar found Ada's outfit from Resident Evil 4 to be unsuitable for the game's theme, ranking her iconic "out-of-our-price-bracket Shanghai hooker" look as the most impractical of all main outfits of the series' stars and commenting that anyone dressing like her to fight zombies would have to be certifiably mental" constitutes as reasonable criticism of the character. Besides, reception of Ada Wong seems to be almost exclusively positive, so demanding equal amounts of positive and negative opinions on her would be undue weight. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 12:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not only the bias but also that there are tons of repetitive references to multiple sources essentially saying the same thing about the character. Also, the reception section on this article is larger than reception sections on most actual games, and does not seem at all justified in being so large. I don't think Ada Wong needs a larger reception section than the game she came from... Also, there are numerous issues with the rest of the article. For instance, is it really relevant how much the wig an actor wore while portraying Ada cost? Is it relevant what that actor thought of the character, or what the producer thought of that actor, shouldn't that information be on the page for that film, rather than the page of this character? There are many issues like these in the article, and I cannot see why it ought to earn good article status in its current state. Roflcopter gamer (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Notability is an extremely shaky and fickle ground to stand on for fictional characters, especially video game characters, so honestly, the more coverage that can found to stick in Reception, the better. Tezero (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As to the length, I blame the common confusion among our writers of summary and synthesis. It tends to result in overblown and redundant writing, as they'll have five sources that all say the character was badass but rather than saying "X, Y, Z, Α, and Ω all said the character was badass.[1][2][3][4][5]" they'll quote every one of them individually. --erachima talk 20:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Problem here is that editors often give the source's reasoning behind why the sources say what they say, such as in this case Ada being "badass", and different sources give different reasoning. I believe that there was a debate on WP:VG a while back whether "list" sources of characters constitute significant coverage (such as "Top 10 most badass characters" or "Top 25 hottest video game women") and the general consensus was is that they shouldn't unless reasoning is given (as an example "Source X listed Ada 7th on their list of most badass characters" isn't significant coverage, but "Source X listed Ada 7th on their list of most badass characters because Y" is given more weight). Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 22:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
That's an issue of whether the list actually has any editorial endorsement, since lists like that can be either official "best-of" stuff or pointless intern-generated clickbait. --erachima talk 23:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't get what you mean, though for me "Source X listed Ada on their list of the badass characters" is less comprehensive, informative and useful for the reader than "Source X listed Ada on their list of badass characters because Y". That being said though, I'm neutral in this debate as to whether the article gets delisted or not, having no strong feelings either way. Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 07:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - this is a hallmark of Niemti/Snaake's awful writing: a parade of one liners and list positions which does not convey any kind of coherent themes (other than repeated sledgehammer references to sex), and is bloated and barely readable. bridies (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not perfect, I agree, but I think most of the fault lies with the game reviewing industry. As for the rest, well, I'm undecided as to whether it doesn't meet the GA criteria or simply doesn't meet FA. As a whole I'm also neutral in this debate. Tezero (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I see someone actually made this point above, but: even if there are loads of instances of these kind of quotes in the secondary literature, they should be summarised, not listed exhaustively and repetitively. Also, being familiar with Niemti's contributions, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't whole other patterns of commentary, not deigned worthy of inclusion because they didn't discuss tits. bridies (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this should be downgraded, if this wasn't clear from above. bridies (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageGAN review
Result pending

This article has seen a substantial amount of edit warring recently, and the talk page is full of disputes. The infobox as I see it now has several {{fact}} and {{verification failed}} tags. This doesn't look like a GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The disputes would eventually settle; the tag bombs are by a single user, which is part of the edit-warring.Forbidden User (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I count at least five people with edits I would describe as "major reverts" - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Even disregarding that, I can see several unsourced claims (eg: "They [rules on non-English Wikipedia] have since diverged to some extent", "However, some vandalism takes much longer to repair", "the number of references to Wikipedia in popular culture is such that the word is one of a select band of 21st-century nouns that are so familiar (Google, Facebook, YouTube) that they no longer need explanation and are on a par with such 20th-century words as hoovering or Coca-Cola"), "Hardware operations and support" has an "outdated" tag, the paragraph describing h2g2 is unsourced, and there are several other {{fact}} tags in the text. It might have met the GA criteria in 2006, but I don't think it does anymore without some substantial work. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333. The article has too many unsourced claims and other issues to continue with GA status. Folklore1 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Agree- I have counted nine claims with CN templates, along with some others including clarify and not in citation given templates. In addition, there are a lot more unsourced/ unverified claims than that. Also, the Hardware operations and support section is outdated.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree Bigbaby23 (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Disagree-for such a long article, the 9 cn templates are few and far between. For such a popular topic, I'm surprised more information hasn't been scrutinized, but I'd expect some cn tags to come up since its GA nomination. They're likely easily fixable, and so minor that it shouldn't involve de-listing.--ɱ (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: did you not see that the page has issues other than the uncited claims?Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems like except your claim that a bit of information is outdated, there are no complaints here listing problems other than that there's some unsourced information.--ɱ (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Unless you think it was put there in bad faith, the presence of a section tag can generally be considered a deal breaker. Add the instability and unverifiable content, and that would probably be enough for me to quickfail this article if it was presented for a GA review now - wouldn't even bother putting it on hold. A GA should have zero citation needed tags at all times. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's your opinion, there's no rule saying a GA can't accumulate cn tags over time, and likely many will over time, after a certain amount of neglect from dedicated authors, but that doesn't mean that the article's quality has lowered down to remove its GA quality. Anyway, I'll stop arguing and perhaps just try to fix these minor problems everyone thinks are a big deal.--ɱ (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Only on Wikipedia would a group of authors want to bicker over problems on their own article rather want to than fix them.--ɱ (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ahem* - we should fix them, but until we do, the article should not have the GA flag, and it should go through a full re-review. That is all I am really getting at. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What the heck is that? And reassessments can and should involve active editing, otherwise probably every GAR would fail... I'm fixing your problems right now.--ɱ (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, but don't bother formatting my cites, I'm using Reflinks to do it.--ɱ (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, it looks like we replaced all of the cn tags and/or removed unverifiable content. Are there further problems?--ɱ (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment while one or two "citation tags" alone wouldn't lead me to fail an article, lack of stability would receive an automatical fail from me without further review. If there were a large amount of such tags, I would fail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
But now there aren't any cn tags. Also, please tell me of this article instability you describe; I can't spot any. IP vandalism shouldn't be an obstacle from keeping an article a GA.--ɱ (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism indeed does not affect stability, though I was just making a general comment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist I concur with Ritchie, there's lots of content not supported with sources. As a general rule of thumb, the end of each paragraph should be cited (not counting those in lead). There are multiple uncited paragraphs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The Lead is blatantly in violation of Wikipedi'a guidelines in the Summary of the criticism section. By using WP:SYNTHESIS & WP:COAT it completely distorts and nullifies the vast Criticism section. It is Violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for the purpose of WP:Promotion. as OP linked to the differences (originally 6&7) [6], [7] (I'm the contributer of [9]) Bigbaby23 (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Since I wrote the above ("there aren't any cn tags"), the replying user Snuggums decided to tag everything with a cn tag, which in my book is nothing but editing to make a WP:POINT. His disruptive edits ought to be reverted, as a start.--ɱ (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't exaggerate, ɱ- I didn't tag everything. While not every sentence needs a citation (WP:OVERCITE), every paragraph does need at least one reference except for lead sections (WP:LEADCITE) and plot sections of shows, books, movies, TV episodes, concerts, and such. WP:V is policy. As a general rule of thumb, it's best to have at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. You also do not WP:OWN the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Never said I did, but your idea of one ref per para is not a policy or even a guideline. Your edits appear to be merely disruptive and as opposition to my 'there's no cn tags to worry about' statement. Clearly you want this article delisted, and will mark it up as much as possible in order for that to happen.--ɱ (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it wasn't to go against your statement. Assuming good faith in others who mean well is policy per WP:AGF, and it offends me how you are openly assuming bad faith when all I wanted was to know what sources support certain statements and for such statements to be supported. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist - Far too many issues as stated above.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Then please go ahead and try to fix some of them. I've tried, although other users are creating and noting more problems to further the likelihood that this'll be delisted.--ɱ (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)