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 ↓

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) ([[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive

Ĝ </noinclude>

Computer Networking and software inst

Template parameters
Parameter Description Type Default Status
SINGH NITESHKUMAR IT MANAGER number 8294631118 optional
|Current archive:

Ĝ </noinclude>

Computer Networking and software inst

Template parameters
Parameter Description Type Default Status
SINGH NITESHKUMAR IT MANAGER number 8294631118 optional
]]) →

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]

Peak oil[edit]

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

This article was reassessed by user:Nehrams2020 back in 2009 and significant improvement was done at that time. However, since then there have been a lot of changes and some of them compromise the quality of that article as GA. First of all, it has been tagged for several months which is during the review process is enough for failure without further review. The article at its current stage also fails 1b and 2b, and there is a question about criteria 4. Namely, there are issues with WP:PROSE and WP:IC. Also, there are dispute about the content. Although this dispute as been died away at the talk page, one can't say that the issue has been resolved. The article also needs some trimming, cleanup and copyediting. Beagel (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a very weak review. Please use the Template:GAList and be specific about what you think disqualifies the article from GA. For example, "It has been tagged for several months..." - I see no tags so, to which tag do you refer? Why does it not meet 1b and 2b, etc.? As for the controversy, that will likely not be resolved in my lifetime. As long as all sides are presented, that does not disqualify the article from GA. I don't necessarily dispute that the article could use some updating and re-organization, but please present a well-reasoned argument for why it should be de-listed. Meclee (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
This was not a review but a request for a community reassessment to be conducted. As I am among the top10 editors (by number of edits) for this page, I will not conduct the review myself. However, I provided some of my concerns about the current stage of this article for the review process. I also never said that the article should be delisted, I just have concerns that this article may not meet all GA criteria, as of today. This is an issue to be clarified during the re-assessment review process. As for your questions concerning the tag, I referred to the {{unreferenced section}} at the top of the 'Definitions' subsection. This unsourced subsection is also a reason why the article fails by my understanding 2b. As for 1b, it fails WP:MOS, namely WP:PROSE and WP:LAY at the same subsection. WP:PROSE applies to the embedded list. The problem with WP:LAY is that there is two subsection under separate sections about the same issue (unconventional sources). There may be other issues which may come-if if appropriate review is conducted. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Article is very dated.

  • Comments about what Simmons and Deffeyes predict, in present tense in lead: Simmons dead for 4 years and Deffeyes unavailable for RS reporter questions about failed predictions. (Surely their predictions are very old? And Simmons had some crazy talk predictions of $500 oil, which sure has not come to pass. So becomes a little bit of a questionable spokesperson.)
  • In article, spots where a series is discussed as '1900 to 2005' or the like [endpoints many years ago].
  • Also, the US and Texas graphics need updating, but then won't sure won't fit the story as well.

This article is a holdover of the mid-2000s Internet buzz about peak oil. There is the famous graphic of how Google searches for Peak Oil are down (peaked actually) and for fracking are up. At this point, there are even RS's to discuss this Internet phenom in the rear view mirror (TOD dying, Campbell/Deffeyes unavailable for comments, Ruppert's suicide, ASPO not having conferences anymore, Savinar becoming an astrologist, Ghawar not watering out, etc.) In actuality oil production has plateu-ed, even slightly increasing over last 10 years. Definitely not the bell curve like predictions of Campbell (2%/year drops post 2005 was what he said) and others.

Small nit: Campbell sure did not popularize the term "peak oil". He just was a bigwig in the latest Internet peak oil buzz. But the term itself was common in the 70s, 80s. Try a Google Books search for Hubbert AND "peak oil". You will see the term peak oil used with blithe familiarity.

For balance (and for an RS), some of the research from The Quest (good book by a Pulitzer Prize winning historian) should be used. The phenom of peak oil fads is documented as having occurred before.

Peak oil is a concept that needs an article. And yes, oil will peak eventually. I guess with enough effort a GA could be constructed, perhaps even by a very fair, sober peak oil advocate. But it will be hard given the concept itself has some strong political overtones (alliance with environmentalism, with the left wing). Also given the complexity of the phenomenon: are we talking about peak oil (the oil itself) or the term or the social hypes around it. I guess it should be all 3. But it's not a simple topic like a biography or an animal species. (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a very strange comment. When I do a search in research journals for articles about peak oil, I get nothing that supports what says. Peak oil is a slow moving story, and the steadiness of what researchers and petroleum engineers have been saying about about the basic premise and issues bears that out. Here's just a tidbit[1]. If has something to add to the discussion, I think the talk page would be a good starting point. Reading through the history of the talk page (where just about everything here has been discussed already) would be even better. (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Desolate North[edit]

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

Reasons for delisting:

  • The prose in the "Reception" is unclear, and a questionmark is not a rating.
  • The article doesn't have information about the personnel.
  • The prose is confusing at some parts: "Maybe six or so copies of Ashen were sent out to various people" (what does this mean?), "as everything was recorded and played by Anderson" (what is everything in this context?), and etc.
  • The infobox is not properly filled; the duration field is empty, must be an exact release date and a producer (certainly can't be "none").
  • Delist as nominator.--Retrohead (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist reception is not broad at all, and article and its redlinks negatively affect stability per WP:STABLE. Many references are also not properly formatted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist because:
  • Infobox has no information of the producer. It is just mentioned as none.
  • Ashen and Bindrune Recordings are linked multiple times even though there pages don't exist.
  • Prose should be better written.
  • Reception section is really poor and needs a re-write probably. The box includes Allmusic ratings but only ? from pitchfork media and decibal magazine. While the content in the section mentions no significant reviewer. The name of reviewer should be mentioned instead of "One reviewer".
  • Tracklist has no details of personnel and the article provides no information related to personnel throughout.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Who are you people? Would the polite thing to do if you're initiating this sort of process be to notify the article's author? Yeah, probably. Equally, if I was to block one of you people, I would probably notify you. Why don't you start again, and behave like a minimally intelligent human being? J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Well its correct that the author should have been notified but on reading the article what makes you feel that the article deserves a good article status. Instead of pointing out the mistake done (probably the nominator didn't remember) you could have notified the author and major contributor. I don't mean to offend you but that would have been better. The GA status must not be thrown away at any article.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The author has a week to complete the notes.--Retrohead (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


First off, this article was written years ago when standards were generally a little lower, so it's inevitable that, reading today, problems will be found. I appreciate that this is no excuse, and I'm happy to fix issues identified.

  • I have copyedited the article, including the reception section and other sections specifically mentioned.
  • There is no personnel section as Tanner Anderson, Celestiial's one member, literally did everything. This is explained in the recording section- it is obviously not the case that "the article provides no information related to personnel throughout".
  • I have expanded the infobox as requested.
  • I have left redlinks in the article, as there is nothing wrong with redlinks. I have removed the badly formatted references, though I appreciate that formatting isn't perfect. I can fix others if you think there are serious problems.

If there are other problems which you feel need to be urgently fixed, please list them here and I will deal with them. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the criteria were lower back then, but the fact that the article didn't receive a proper review remains. I still stand by my opinion that this article isn't a GA, regarding it's inconsistent reference formatting (why so cites in the track listing?) and prose comprehensiveness.--Retrohead (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide concrete examples of the inconsistent formatting and what is lacking from the prose? I really can't do anything about it unless you tell me what the problem is. The citations look OK to me, and it's not a GA requirement that they are perfect. (I've reworked the tracklisting.) J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are things to address:
  • Remove or correct all the redlinks per WP:STABLE (these are found in the lead and infobox
  • WP:STABLE is neither a policy nor a guideline, and does not mention redlinks. There is nothing wrong with redlinks, at all; see WP:REDLINK, which is a recognised guideline. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, it reads "A stable article"..... "has not red links". They should be removed as they negatively affect stability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Honestly, it doesn't matter what that page says (and the passage doesn't even make grammatical sense). It is a rejected idea; not a policy or even guideline. WP:REDLINK is our actual guideline on redlinks. Many, many featured articles have redlinks, and that's just fine. I've never understood the opposition to redlinks- in years gone by, they were loved, because they encourage encyclopedia-building, but now people (falsely) seem to believe that they are a bad thing. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • My guess is because they are seen as unhelpful for not leading to anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If that's your view, that's fine, but it is explicitly not the view of the Wikipedia community, which is explained at WP:REDLINK. When we're writing, we should act in accordance with guidelines unless we have a good reason not to. "I do not like the guideline" is not a good reason. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "The music is extremely slow"..... I don't think everyone is going to automatically know what this is supposed to mean unless you include things like "slow rhythm" or "slow instrumentals"
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, a ref shouldn't be used more than once in a row per paragraph (refs#1 and #3 have this issue in "release" section, and it happens again with ref#1 in "Imagery" section
  • Expand the "reception" section by including more reviewers in the score box, and by providing more names of reviewers.
  • Replace or remove refs#15, #18, and #19 as they are dead
  • I have removed/replaced them, but I note that, per WP:DEADLINK, this is not strictly necessary.
  • Should be more consistent now.
Best of luck getting this back up to GA quality. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I've addressed all of your comments. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Another thing I should note: When using multiple refs from the same source (i.e. multiple links to AllMusic), the work/publisher should only be linked in the first ref that uses them per WP:OVERLINK. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK does not say that- quite the opposite, in fact. "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Encyclopaedia Metallum and Handmade Birds are not reliable sources
    • Encyclopedia Metallum is used only for the track lengths. I could take them from a commercial source if preferred, but linking to shops is generally looked down upon. Handmade Birds is the record label which re-released the album, and is linked to only because of that (and because AllMusic mistakenly calls the label "Hand Made Birds"). I rely on neither source for anything close to controversial. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The related Wikiproject clearly states that those "should never be used as sources"→Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid. If you think that Encyclopaedia Metallum should be used, initiate a discussion to be removed from there.--Retrohead (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I can remove Encyclopedia Metallum if you like, but that'll just leave the track times without a reference. Is it something that needs a reference? No, probably not. What do you want me to do? J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I've found a primary source for the tracklisting and replaced Encyclopedia Metallum. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ref number 5, 6, and 16 are dead
  • what makes Sea of Tranquility and Maelstrom reliable sources?
    • Sea of Tranquility is a former print magazine run by professional journalists- see their about page. Maelstrom is a well-established ezine which publishes commissioned pieces and has an editor/editorial team. These both strike me as appropriate sources for analysis of albums such as Desolate North- per our guidelines on reliable sources, context is important! J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is there an external link to Allmusic when that's already used in the reception?
Well a lot of work has been done on the article through this discussion. I would also suggest removal of dead links as wikipedia is read by millions of people and most of the readers are not its users or interested in editing. So, as the redlinks lead to nothing this would only reduce the quality of the page for a general reader. The deadlinks should be taken care of too. Otherwise most of the problems are addressed. All the best.Abhinav0908 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm frustrated that I have to repeat this, but here goes- WP:DEADLINK and WP:REDLINK are both accepted guidelines. The removal of redlinks and deadlinks is not required, and the removal of redlinks can actually be damaging. If you disagree with the guidelines, take it up on the village pump, but please do not ask me to do things which are against established guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A question: What is the purpose of the photo? Is it part of the booklet or something? How can a picture of bark demonstrate the band's natural imagery? Where is the band pictured?--Retrohead (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It's a publicity photo used by Celestiial. Anonymity is important for Anderson- he sent me that picture to use as a picture "of" the band. I suppose the feeling is that a hand holding bark gives a better impression of what Celestiial is "about" than another moody shot under a bridge! J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Milburn, I don't know what makes you think that this article is on level with the rest of the GAs, but since it wouldn't be moral of me to close the GAR myself, I let someone else uninvolved in the discussion to do that. Hope you're not still irritated by the minor misunderstanding with me.--Retrohead (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you still feel that there's a problem, please tell me what it is and I'll do what I can to fix the article. In every case, I've changed the article or explained why I am not going to do with reference to guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
One other comment: It says "various" for the time it was recorded. If known, I would provide specific date ranges for recording sessions (years and months or simply years will suffice). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
"Various" refers to the locations- I've clarified that it was recorded in 2005. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:PLACE, you must explain what various means. Leaving it like that is simply not suitable for the infobox. Either clarify it, or omit it. "Various" can be anywhere.--Retrohead (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The infobox currently reads "Multiple locations in 2005". Could you please quote the part of the guideline you feel shows the wrongness of this? You'll have to excuse me if I'm sick of being hit over the head with WP:IRRELEVANTCAPITALS. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that "multiple locations" can be ambiguous as they don't tell much about where they were recorded. The lead also seems to consist of three stub-ish paragraphs, maybe merge them into two large ones if not expand. In fact, there's lots of paragraphs that seem to be stubbish. If they can't be expanded to more complete paragraphs, merge them to make larger ones. Any more reviews available? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't give any more information about the recording locations without saying more than is appropriate to give in an infobox. A stub is a very short article, not a short paragraph, and I'm not going to artificially merge paragraphs; that's just bad writing. I have rewritten the lead. Do you want more reviews, or more from the reviews I've already cited? J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Both more reviews and more detail from them would be quite nice. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Various places where? In Denmark? On Mars?--Retrohead (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
There you go. I am completely bored of this stuff, now. I have changed the infobox to read "2004-5, United States". Any more specific will drift into OR or too much information for an infobox. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
A brief example.--Retrohead (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not doing that, it looks ridiculous. I am not interested in discussing this issue any further. If you have any real comments about why you feel that this article needs to be demoted from GA status, please list them below. If you want to continue to bicker about minutiae and misrepresent policies/guidelines, go away. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep GA is not FA. The article currently passes the criteria. The fact that you may not like something isn't a reason to delist. If you want to argue about small pieces of policy, look over here --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. There were definitely issues with the article previously, but J Milburn has fixed all the things I would have pointed out. I don't think the red/dead links are a huge issue and this article's GA review isn't the place to debate them. Sotakeit (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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)