Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of experienced Wikipedia good article reviewers. The old nominations in need of additional reviews are: The Muppets' Wizard of Oz • Boron • Martin Luther •

Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status. GAR can also promote articles to GA status, but this has been infrequent occurring occasionally following delisting from GA status or after failing a good article nomination. GAR can sometimes provide more feedback for delisted articles or failed GA nominations. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see 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: 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, 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. 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. 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; it is primarily used to reassess the status of current good articles. A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review, and an individual's assessment. In that case, an editor requests a discussion on the good article status of the article, and that discussion is listed on this page. When consensus is reached, the discussion is closed and the status of the article is updated accordingly. 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, or are a major contributor to the article, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request 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 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. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria, and save the page. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article. 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: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window. Allow time for other editors to respond. Also, please 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. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted. To do this, remove the article from one of the lists at Wikipedia:Good articles; then remove {{Good article}} from the article and the {{GA}} template from the article talk page, if there is one, or update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page. Change any project assessments on the talk page. To close the reassessment: if there is no {{ArticleHistory}} template then replace the date in the {{GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted". If there is an {{ArticleHistory}} template then update it and delete the {{GAR/link}} template.

Community reassessment When to use this process Use this process when a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review of good article nomination cannot be resolved among the editors involved. If you believe a current good article does not meet the criteria, try reassessing the article yourself (an individual reassessment), and only request a community reassessment if a disagreement arises. If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it. Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate: reviewers are rarely content experts, nor can they reassess a moving target. 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 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). 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. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script) and relevant WikiProjects for the article. See below for how to contribute to a community reassessment, and how to close one. Depending on the situation, reviewers may move mountains to list an article as a GA, or they may simply endorse a fail, or suggest the article be renominated. See also: Alphabetical list of previous community reassessments

Guidelines for reviewers. Please consult the good article criteria before you comment 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 here, it almost always means that someone considers it to be of good quality, so if it does not meet the criteria, an explicit explanation is more likely to be appreciated than a general comment that the article is inadequate. Furthermore, reviewers should feel free to fix problems with articles under review if they wish: this is not regarded as a conflict of interest, and may 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) contain useful advice. Any registered user can list or delist a good article (see above), but for articles listed here, please follow the archiving guidelines below for closing discussions and changing the status of the article.

Guidelines for closing a community reassessment discussion. When a community reassessment has run its course, it can be closed by any uninvolved registered user: please click on the "show" link (above right) for guidelines on when to close discussions. To close a discussion, go to the community reassessment page of the article and replace {{GAR/current}} by {{subst:GAR/result|result=outcome}} ~~~~. Here you should state the outcome (whether there was consensus, and what action was taken) and explain carefully how the consensus and action was determined from the comments. On the talk page of the article, replace {{GAR/link|GARpage=n}} by adding or updating {{ArticleHistory}}. If the result changes the GA status, update the article and article talk page templates and the good articles list accordingly. The reassessment discussion will automatically be removed from the good article reassessment page and added to the current archive within an hour. edit archiving guidelines

Reassessment discussions which are still active should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 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 at least five editors have expressed an opinion the editors' comments demonstrate a very clear consensus. 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 what the consensus of the reviewers is, 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 a clear weight of argument that a current good article does not meet the criteria, then it should be delisted. If there is a clear weight of argument that a delisted good article or failed nomination does meet the criteria, then it should be listed as a good article. 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.

← (All archives)

Good article reassessment (update archive number)

(Current archive: 53) →

Articles needing review and possible reassessment

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 {{GA request}} from the article talk page. In cases where they do not, simply remove the template from the article talk page.

• 21:41:35, 12/02/2012: Current date for reference

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 {{GA request}} to the article talk page.

See also

• Good article cleanup listing

Articles listed for community reassessment

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

• As soon as I passed this article as GA, criticism on the talk page started that the article didn't cover in detail allegations of racial discrimination, and additional material was added to the article regarding the racial discrimination accusations. The company was also accused of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination, but there has not been any interest in adding material about these issues. I doubt my own ability at this point to judge how much detail of the specific allegations of racial discrimination plus quotes should be covered in the article. There also are complaints that the article covers such things as the restaurant's menu which is considered "fluff". IMO, I doubt that this article can conform to the GA criteria if much specific material regarding these issues is added, per UNDUE weight and if necessary info like the restaurant's menu is removed. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Have the major contributors been notified of this (you can use {{subst:GARMessage|''ArticleName''|page=''n''}}). Note that you can also conduct an individual reassessment on the articles talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i've been involved in the talk page discussion, so I am notified. The other main contributor, User:WWB Too, is also aware of the discussion and this GAR, but due to his positive COI in regards to the article, he has decided to stay out of both discussions. So i'll be fielding anything specific.

At this point, what we need is not a delist discussion, but a discussion on which version of the article would more conform to GA requirements, the version with or without the extended controversy and criticism info. I and others are of the opinion that the information is already covered sufficiently enough in the article, but there are a few that feel that because the controversy is about racial discrimination and human rights, it should be given more coverage and weight in the article. Obviously, there are a number of people, myself included, that disagree with this belief. Silverseren^C 18:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Since GAR can't help with such an issue, should this just be closed and we go back to discussing on the talk page? Silverseren^C 17:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would leave it a bit longer. Instability itself is a reason to delist. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay. For now, at least, it seems like the compromise has took. Silverseren^C 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      

---

Entre a Mi Mundo

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

The reviewer did not leave helpful comments for improvements on this article. Sh/e left the GA review template blanked with oppose signs. Sh/e only explained, in a one-short sentence, that the article is not near GA level (wow very helpful). This isn't the first time I complained about a GA reviewer. I'm not sure if its me personally and that's why no one likes to review any/the article(s) I nominate but I think I should get a fair review. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, your comment that you will fix it has not been done, not even about the copyright status of some files. Well, I did remove them. Secondly, I'm male, and the parser fontion {{GENDER:Ebe123|he|she|}} works perfectly. You could of asked for extra details, but it does need to get more compliance with WP:MOS. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Because you failed it without any comments for improvements besides the short sentence. I didn't know you was going to quick-fail it, that's why I said I was going to fix it. Secondly, I don't need to ask you to review the article on your talk page, if you started the review yourself. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the comments left are not very helpful, a community review is unlikely to yield anything in this case. Your best bet is to take Ebe123 up on his offer of more details, fix what you can and then renominate it at WP:GAN. AIRcorn (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result pending

Met GA status 4 years ago. Recently i had to add a citation needed tag to it and upon reading this, compared to other GA articles, i don't feel it meets the GA anymore. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:09 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please list specific examples of problems here. Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The significant contributor is semi-retired and hasn't been on since December 2. The GA nominator is also the same person. I could send him a message, but i wouldn't know if he would answer. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:03 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RustedAutoParts, the idea is not to 'scalp' articles, but advise on how you think they can be improved to meet criteria. You've obviously looked at the article enough to come to the conclusion it doesn't meet Good article criteria, so now list what those problems are. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the cite-needed tag with a ref to an offline source [1]. I can email the magazine article upon request but I can see that the article was written based on this press release. maclean (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other concerns now that the citation needed tag is resolved? AIRcorn (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The cast section seems to be a bit awkwardly written. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:23 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the Muppet Performers section much. In my opinion it would be a lot better to simply have "Steve Whitmire as Kermit the Frog" and leave all the "as the ......." stuff out of it. It should probably focus just on the main Muppets, I am sure we don't include all the minor roles in other movie articles. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The change to the cast section was relatively recent so I reinstated the wording that was present in the version that passed GA. It has improved it greatly in my opinion. I would be happy for this to be kept if this change holds. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Boron

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

I feel that the article is not suitable referenced; there are many paragraphs that lack refs. In addition, the prose strength does not seem GA-worthy to me. StringTheory¹¹ 05:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The page grew from 54,848 bytes (2009-07-21) to 71,713 bytes (2012-01-05) and also from 98 refs to 112 refs, there might be the good chance to improve the page with the help of the main contributors.--Stone (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep While it could be improved I am not seeing anything here or at the article that warrants delisting. Maybe if some examples of poor prose or unreferenced statements were provided a stronger case could be made. AIRcorn (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Martin Luther

Article (edit | history) • Article talk (edit | history) • Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

There is a huge paragraph (Starting with "According to scholars") in the "The start of the Reformation" above "Justification by faith" that attempts to discredit a bunch of commonly held ideas about the circumstances of the 95 thesis. I added in a liberal sprinkling of ^{[citation needed]} since this was a huge blob of psuedo-"facts" that hadn't been verified in any way for almost a year. This wasn't meant to be a menace, I am just trying to clarify the large number of claims in this paragraph without tag bombing it.

I find it interesting that this was listed as a featured page in October 2011 when this huge, fact-laden paragraph only has a single citation - the first sentence - and then makes many more claims with no citations to back them up. Some good soul put in a single ^{[citation needed]} dated May 2011, so I can only assume there are more facts that need to be carefully rechecked and properly cited -- or removed entirely?

I bring this up because this has been a heavily used page for the front page "on this day" feature, ten times in fact, and we are pointing to this page as a good example of what Wikipedia is, while at the same time not citing the facts. Hopefully someone can decide to remove this paragraph completely, or a student of god can go back and verify these claims?

Therefore, it fails criteria 2b - (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged

Thanks Hadlock (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please notify the most recent GA reviewer. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script and relevant WikiProjects for the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley: I passed the article for GA (not, of course FA, as stated above). If the three sources at the start of the paragraph in question did not cover all the statements that follow them, further citations would be needed. Is it suggested that they do not do so? Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you happen to check those citations when you did the review? AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I do not have the resources to check the first three citations, although considering the layout and abundance of the other sources within the article I find it unlikely that they support the rest of the paragraph. Walter Krämer, Götz Trenkler, Gerhard Ritter and Gerhard Prause are the authors of the citations, however they are not mentioned in the rest of the paragraph, which lends more weight to the idea that these sources don't apply to remainder of the paragraph. Furthermore in the passed version a cite to this website was present near the bottom, correctly removed with this edit in June 2011. The citatinon needed tags have been requested for a while with no action being taken despite a lot of edits to the page. If someone could resolve those tags (or removes the uncited information) soon then this can be kept, otherwise it will have to be delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Delist, regretfully. If the citation needed tags are taken care of before this is closed the closer can disregard this !vote and consider me a keep. AIRcorn (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Delist. I have removed the contentious unsourced material and replaced it with a short summary. The source I used to cite it is a travel book, so it's not top quality, but it's better than nothing for the moment. I would strongly support a delist - it appears the sources have not been checked; the lead does not cover the article adequately per WP:Lead; the presentation isn't clear - his decision to drop law was the result of his thunderstorm experience, though this is presented in a separate paragraph; there are a number of short paragraphs giving a choppy, awkward feel; there are a number of short sections contrary to WP:Layout; the contents are unbalanced: there is a large section on antisemitism, and nothing on his legacy or significance (which is standard in encyclopaedias on Luther, given his importance), so failing 3(a) and 3(b); there are images cluttering the article, failing WP:LAYIM; captions are variable, sometimes too long, sometimes not clear enough, failing 6(b) - WP:Captions. The article needs a decent peer review, and a period of work before being nominated, and then, given the topic - its size, importance and complexity - it would benefit from an experienced reviewer prepared to track down and read sources. Fails - 1(a) and 1(b); 3(a) and 3(b); 6(b). It needs to be checked for 2(b) and 2(c), and 4. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

---