Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup 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]

Battle of Marathon[edit]

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

In 2010 was published Peter Krentz's The Battle of Marathon and in 2014 Dennis Fink's The Battle of Marathon in Scholarship, a synthesis of all the studies about the battle written from 1850 to 2014; the article was written before these books, so his historiography is outdated in a lot of points. I think this article doesn't respect the point 3a of criteria, because a lot of aspects of the battle aren't treated at all (e.g. the reconstruction of the battlefield) or are treated too superficially (e.g. the shield signal: all theories about it are summarized in "although many interpretations of this have been offered"). Also the parts about the prelude, the date and the significance can be extended. Some of the points I mentioned have already been reported in the article's talk. --Epìdosis (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Just a drive-by comment, but do remember that the criteria for Good Articles are much lower than those for Featured Articles - I'd point out this note specifically on 3a, that seems to address most of your concerns (or at least my reading of them). Cheers, Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Has the main contributor been informed about the reassessment? Aside from that, I concur with Parsecboy. I think that the third criteria→"broad in its coverage" means the article covers the main aspects of the theme, not incorporating the newest publications on the topic. I'm leaning towards keeping the article.--Retrohead (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I informed the main contributor. I think the reconstruction of the battlefield is a primary element and it isn't treated at all. --Epìdosis (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd point out, again, that the note on 3a states that it "...allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail..." - that the article has room for improvement does not bar it from GA. Your objection would be perfectly suited to a FAC review for this article, but we're not at FAC level, we're at GA level. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think that not being totally up to date on scholarship prejudices the status of the article, particularly at GA level. If the title was Historiography of the Battle of Marathon, it'd certainly be very different but I think the article still does all the things a casual reader would expect of it. I've made some edits to clean up some rot on the article (mostly template issue and image spacing), but I think it would be a real shame to see it removed from the GA lists for something so minor. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't feel the publication of new works should be weighed very highly. As for the remainder of the points, they seem to be things which could be handled via editing and improving the article. Protonk (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012[edit]

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

On the talk page, some editors have expressed doubt about the article be WP:GA. RightCowLeftCoast was the last to do so. I request a community reassessment. Thank you. Casprings (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking @ WP:GA? -
Layout appears to be satisfactory
Words to Watch: 1 use of the word racist; 6 usages of the word controversial
Several counts of the usage of some people: some American pro-life activists say; some analysts identified; some called for him; some social conservative organizations
Reading the source only the Family Research Council is named: some commentators; experts said
1 use of the word supposed; 1 use of the word accused; 1 use of the word reveal
Content appears to be Verifiable to reliable sources, with in line citations, some minor syntax errors, but nothing significant
Given the specific scope of being only the 2012 election cycle in the United States, it appears to be primarily focused on two individuals, so to say it is broad is debatable.
Neutral, now that is where I have issue with. Although all the opinions are well cited, this article appears to be an attack page on two living individuals, largely being a collection of statements against the statements made by the individuals. Each of these separately received significant coverage, and although the events are related it would be like creating an article about all multi-person death events in year XXXX. Therefore, I am saying this article is not neutral on its face.
The article is stable.
The article contains supporting images.
Therefore, I would de-list this article, until its neutrality is greatly worked on, and it complies with WTW.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I do disagree with that assessment, even if some of it may be useful in helping the article. I will have to look at the context of the words to watch. That said, I disagree with the article not being neutral "on its fact". I would note that the major issue has been discussed here. Casprings (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur with RCLC's assessment en toto. I particularly agree with his view that the article's neutrality needs a lot of work, and given that at its heart, the very premise of the article is non-neutral, I can't even really see a path to real neutrality for it. Thus, my recommendation would also be to delist this article. LHMask me a question 13:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)