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 ↓

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]

Ben Affleck[edit]

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

This is long overdue. This article has been in shambles for quite some time now and, I'd say, is not deserving of the GA anymore. It is frequently vandalized. Edits wars are common. It is full to the brim with superfluous information which is either supported by bare urls, dead links and unreliable and unstable sources or completely unfounded at all. The article itself is, as is, rather poorly constructed, overwhelming to an average reader and more of an assortment of facts rather than a coherent written piece. GA worthy content is still there and kicking, but is too few and far between. Plus, seeing as Affleck is set to play Batman in the new Batman v Superman film, the article is surely going to receive a lot more traffic. EDIT: so many bare urls. ProKro (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of work on this article in the past six months and agree that it needs to be better, given the Batman interest. It's obviously still a work in progress - there are definitely a lot of bare urls and some sections need to be trimmed back. However, there actually isn't much vandalism and there are no edit wars. I actually think the Early Life and Political Activism sections have improved since the GA-reviewed article!
I'm not aware of any unfounded statements in the article - please outline them and I will quickly remove them. If you tell me some specific areas to work on, I can get to work on improving it. For example, what sort of information is superfluous? How should the article be constructed? Popeye191 (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Your work is apparent and commendable and excuse my original upheaval, as the article is in more or less good standing, in line with other good articles but plagued by small nuisances. After giving it a read I realized it is not as bad as it first seemed, but is not the article that was reviewed as it has expanded immensely. What really needs cleaning the most are the bare urls and bad sourcing, dead links, especially YouTube and Twitter links which, although not completely unreliable, ought to be replaced with a better source if there is one to avoid link rot. I'd categorize most statements supported by person's Twitter tweets unfounded as it can be considered a primary source. The text structure is sound but certain sentences could be improved. The structure such as "Also in 2002, he appeared in The Third Wheel. Also in 2002, he was named Sexiest Man Alive by People Magazine" and all other similar sentences that follow the pattern "In (year) this and that and then in the (year) he also..." followed by more identical sentences should be avoided and made more coherent with the rest of the text, if possible. It is not alarming by all means, but it would make for a much more enjoyable read and feel less like just one factoid after another. Edit wars claim are my bad, I was looking at the much older dates while writing, all of which have since been resolved. As far as quantity goes, the article is large compared to other biographies, which is fine so I'd suggest maybe cutting down on including new information as it comes and filter the most prominent if there are several to pick from. To give an example, it reads the Affleck supported and donated to President Obama's campaign with a fixed amount, which is and should be included, but "In 2003, he made donations to the presidential campaigns of both Dennis Kucinich ($1,000) and Wesley Clark ($2,000), and, in 2005, he donated $500 to Deval Patrick, a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. In 2008, he donated $2,300 to the Congressional campaign of Pennsylvania's Patrick Murphy while, in 2010, he donated $1,500 to the Senate campaign of Kirsten Gillibrand." seems a bit too much and could be shortened to include only names without the amounts. Again, just a minor observation, can be easily fixed. I haven't noticed any major grammatical mistakes or deviation from established writing style, it is all in unison as if written by a single person. That's pretty much it for now, I'll be sure to give it a more thorough read in the future and point out any problems if I happen to stumble upon any. To be clear, I wasn't calling for delisting and never will, but rather minor tweaks and routine quality control. All the best, ProKro (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist while the bare URL's have been filled, many are malformatted. This article is beyond bloated with trivia; for example, "sports" and "professional poker" sections are entirely unneeded. The lead also needs reorganization, probably best to have first paragraph be introductory and career beginnings, second paragraph to extended primary career, third paragraph for achievements and other endeavors. I was going to put it up for reassessment myself, ProKro, if you hadn't already done so. It is beyond repair. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes[edit]

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

I hate having to be the bad guy nominating this article for GAR, although it has been on my mind for several months and has been lacking in some essential GA criterion for several months now. In regards to being well-written, I find it questionable to have two separate sections ("2010–present: Personal struggles" and "Personal life" with the subsection "Legal issues") that should be covering the same material, although are very patchy in their coverage. Its neutrality is debatable in that it appears as though there is undue weight given to several instances of Bynes' erratic behavior; at quick glance, I see a full paragraph dedicated to her allegations of abuse by her father, which could be condensed into a sentence. The overall accuracy of the article is suspect given the almost completely unsourced "Awards and nominations" section, while Bynes' frequent displays of unruly activity and alleged mental illness threaten its stability significantly. I think that the article is too far gone to be salvaged in this moment; the best option in my eyes would be to delist the article and give it a thorough revamping for a later promotion. WikiRedactor (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delist I agree. I keep cutting back the nonsense about her personal troubles, and it keeps growing back. Why is there even as much as a sentence about a former co-star who claims to still be her friend? Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist in addition to the points you bring up, WikiRedactor, there are also malformatted/unreliable sources. I really don't think "personal life" warrants a separate section—especially once all the fluff is removed—and should be intertwined with "early life" into one "life and career" section. It also has falls short on broadness in coverage since there is no detail on her acting style, influences, or what critics have said of her work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist - where do we start? Well, the initial bit of the article is just too short, we don't know why she got into acting, what she was interested in, did her parents support her, how did she feel? Her career since 2010 seems to have passed by without comment, and the "Legal Issues" section is a WP:BLP violating tabloid rant. Compare and contrast with, say, Katy Perry, which is much better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I almost forgot about such missing detail, Ritchie. That just adds salt to an open wound. On a side note, I'm surprised this was listed as GA in April 2006 yet wasn't reviewed during 2009–2010 GA Sweeps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist The article just isn't up to par with the other good articles. I was surprised to see it as a good article when I first started working on it. Knowing others that work on it, it probably won't make any progress soon. VisaBlack (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist - Needs to be revamped. ProKro (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Affluence in the United States[edit]

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

This article was requested for a reassessment. After looking over it, I believe that it fails the Good Article criteria in its current condition. The article is not up to date, as well as it having tags like Citation Needed and Original Research on it. The prose also needs a rewrite. Reading sentences like "While the two paragraphs above only describe the relationship between status and personal income, household income is also often used to infer status." shows that the article fails criterion 1.b. I hope that work can be done to fix this article up. GamerPro64 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delist - Agreed on all points. Needs to be revamped. ProKro (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake[edit]

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

This article was promoted to GA back in April 2008, and has gone through many changes since. I've tried to spruce this up a bit lately, but am not convinced that this is up to par with GA criteria after looking it through, or that it can be salvaged. Right now, here is how I feel it stands:

  • Is it well-written?: Symbol question.svg Not too bad, but could be better. For example, his personal life probably doesn't warrant a separate section and could be integrated into a "life and career" section along with "early life" since there's rather little information on his dating life with simply Jessica Biel (his wife), Britney Spears (whom he co-starred on The Mickey Mouse Club with), and maybe Cameron Diaz (I'm on the fence whether she should be included). The lead could probably have more detail on his work with NSYNC. The "Television work" section could probably be integrated there as well given his prominence in TV.
  • Is it verifiable?: Failed good article nominee In addition to having dead links, there's HARVref's to books not used, and some sources aren't even reliable (TMZ, "TripAdvisor", Daily Record, "So Feminine", "ShowBuzz", "Celebrity Gross", etc.)
  • Is it broad in coverage?: Failed good article nominee Probably the weakest point. It doesn't really discuss his acheivements in terms of commercial success and major awards such as Grammys or MTV Video Music Awards, and doesn't really go into his musical/acting styles, his influences, or what critics have said of his works as the "artistry" section is rather short compared to other FA/GA singer articles. Given how he is often deemed a sex symbol within society, I would expect commentary from that here as well. Additionally, there is surprisingly little on his work in The Mickey Mouse Club, which played a critical part in his early career.
  • Is it neutral?: Seems OK
  • Is it stable?: No concerns here. In fact, this is probably the article's strongest point, as there hasn't been any major editing to the page in recent months.
  • Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?: Symbol question.svg All image licensing seems to be OK, but I don't see how a photo of him golfing really benefits the article.

With all of this being said, I think it would be best to delist the article, work it up again, and take to peer review before renominating. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Delist - Not as broad in coverage as most other similar GA-class articles. A lot of dead links and unreliable sources, as already stated. Needs to be delisted and revamped. ProKro (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)